
Glass T J fft*QsC-s C 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/alaskafisheriesh01unit 



ALASKA FISHERIES 

HEARINGS 

THE COMMITTEE ON THE 
MERCHANT^ MARINE AND FISHERIES 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 
First Session 

37% 

ON 

H. R. 9528 

A BILL FOR THE PROTECTION, REGULATION, AND CO ft 
SERVATION OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA 



PART 1 



MAY 25, 1916 






WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1916 



& & 



^ X \>\> 



COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES. 

■ House of Representatives. 



JOSHUA W. ALE 
RUFUS HARDY, Texas. 
MICHAEL E. BURKE, Wisconsin. 
EDWARD W. SAUNDERS, Virginia. 
PETER J. DOOLING, New York. 
HENRY BRUCKNER, New York. 
LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. 
JAMES F. BYRNES, South Carolina. 
JESSE D. PRICE, Maryland. 
CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. 



XANDER, Missouri, Chairman. 

OSCAR L. GRAY, Alabama. 
DAVID H. KINCHELOE, Kentucky. 
WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. 
ASHER C. HINDS, Maine. 
CHARLES F. CURRY, California. 
GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania. 
WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, Illinois. 
GEORGE A. LOUD, Michigan. 
LINDLEY H. TIADLEY, Washington. 
FREDERICK W. ROWE, New York. 
J. C. Bay, Clerk. 



D. of D. 
AUG 25 1916 



if 



£ ALASKA FISHERIES. 



!' 



Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, Thursday, May 25, 1916. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joshua W. Alex- 
ander (chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we have under consideration this 
morning H. R. 9528, which reads as follows: 

A BILL For the protection, regulation, and conservation of the fisheries of Alaska. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful to engage in the business of taking, 
catching, fishing for, canning, curing, preserving, packing, or otherwise dealing at 
wholesale in food fish or shellfish, or other aquatic animals or the products thereof, 
in the Territory of Alaska or in any of the waters of Alaska over which the United 
States has jurisdiction, without first obtaining license therefor as herein provided. 
Every person, except employees, engaging in the business of taking, catching, 
fishing for, canning, curing, preserving, packing, or otherwise dealing at wholesale 
in food fish or shellfish, or other aquatic animals or the products thereof, or manufac- 
turing fisheries products, in the Territory of Alaska or in any of the waters of Alaska 
over which the United States has jurisdiction, shall before commencing operations 
apply for a license to the Secretary of Commerce, who shall issue the same, and every 
such person shall, in lieu of all other Federal or Territorial license fees and taxes 
therefor and thereon, pay annual license fees and taxes on said business and output 
as in this act provided. 

Sec. 2. License fees and taxes. — That a license fee of $5 shall be imposed and 
paid for each canning, mild-curing, salting, smoking, fish freezing, whaling, or other 
wholesale fish-dealing establishment; for each fish fertilizer and fish oil works, and for 
each other fishery establishment, except retail markets, not herein specified. 

For each pound net, $50; for each fish wheel, $25 (except small wheels in the Yukon 
and Copper rivers of the type heretofore used, $2); for each purse seine, $25; for each 
beam trawl or other trawl net, $10; for each gill net boat and equipment, $2; for each 
stake net, $2; for each set net, $1; for each drag, haul, or beach seine five hundred feet 
or less in length, $3, and for each additional five hundred feet in length or fraction 
thereof, $5 ; for any other kind of fishing applicance or method used in taking aquatic 
products, $1. 

Every licensee employing any fishing appliance or method hereinbefore mentioned 
shall, by December thirty-first of each year, in addition to the license fees by this 
act provided, pay for the raw aquatic products taken by him as follows: For king, 
chinook, or spring salmon, and for steelhead trout or salmon at the rate of $2 per 
thousand fish; for red, sockeye, or blueback salmon at the rate of $1 per thousand fish; 
for coho or silver salmon and for chum or keta salmon, at the rate of 75 cents per 
thousand fish; and for humpback or pink salmon, at the rate of 50 cents per thousand 
fish. 

Every person engaged in canning salmon or other food fish or shellfish shall, by 
December thirty-first of each year, pay a tax on the output as follows, according to 
species: King, chinook, or spring; red, sockeye, or blueback; coho or medium red; 
and steelhead trout or salmon, 4 cents per case; chum or keta, and humpback or pink, 
3 cents per case; all other food fish and shellfish, 3 cents per case. 

Every person engaged in curing or preserving fish, or manufacturing fishery prod- 
ucts, except by canning, shall, by December thirty-first of each year, pay a tax 
thereon as follows: Mild-cured salmon, 75 cents per tierce; pickled salmon, 15 cents 
per barrel; salt salmon in bulk, 5 cents per hundred pounds; salmon and trout frozen, 



4 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

iced, or otherwise preserved and not hereinbefore specified, 75 cents per ton, round 
weight; whale or fish oil, 10 cents per barrel; fertilizer or meal made from whales fish, 
or other aquatic products, 50 cents per ton; salt cod, 50 cents per ton; pickled herring, 
10 cents per barrel; salt herring in bulk or otherwise, 25 cents per ton; all other pre- 
pared products not hereinbefore specified, 25 cents per ton. 

Nothing in this act shall require the issuance of a license for the taking of fish or 
other aquatic products for personal, domestic, or family use, and not for sale or barter, 
when not otherwise unlawful to take same, or for conducting retail trade in fish or 
fishery products. 

Sec. 3. Licenses and taxes, how collected. — That all license fees and taxes 
shall be payable to and collected by the Secretary of Commerce or his authorized 
agents, and all taxes if not paid when due shall become delinquent, and draw shall 
interest at the rate of one per centum per month until paid . And it shall be the duty 
of all United States district attorneys to enforce the payment of all delinquent taxes 
in their respective districts, and all property belonging to the delinquents shall bs 
subject to execution and attachment therefor. 

Sec 4. Disposition of license fees and taxes. — That all the license fees and 
taxes derived from the fisheries of Alaska shall be covered into the Treasury of the 
United States, and fifty per centum thereof shall be transferred annually to the 
treasurer of the Territory of Alaska for such purposes as the Territorial Legislature of 
Alaska may direct. The remaining fifty per centum shall be placed in a fund to be 
known as the Alaska fisheries fund, which fund is hereby created, and the moneys 
in said fund shall be held subject to appropriation from time to time by Congress for 
the construction, purchase, maintenance, and operation of fish hatcheries in Alaska, 
and for other purposes relating to the investigation, development, preservation, and 
conservation of the Alaska fisheries. 

Sec 5. Licenses, form, renewal, and transfer. — That all licenses and renewals 
thereof for fishing appliances issued by the Secretary of Commerce shall be designated 
by consecutive numbers and shall indicate the kind of the particular appliance for 
which the license is issued and the name of the person ow ning the same. The owner 
or operator of each stationary fishing appliance shall have conspicuously affixed thereto 
a tag, brand, or lettered notice bearing the license number in black letters not less 
than six inches in height upon a v bite ground. For movable apparatus, a tag, brand, 
or notice showing the license number in figures at least six inches in height, either 
in dark figures on a light ground or light figures on a dark ground, shall be placed on 
both sides of the bow of each boat or vessel used in operating same. All licenses 
shall expire on the thirty-first day of December of the calendar year in which issued. 

The failure to renew the license or to have made lawful application therefor for any 
pound net, fish wheel, or other fixed appliance in any of the w 7 aters of Alaska, by 
the first day of January of any year shall constitute abandonment of the location. 
Should the locator or owner neglect to construct and operate his appliance in a bona 
fide manner for the three consecutive years covered by his license, said location shall 
be deemed abandoned. 

Any license may be assigned or transferred to any person entitled to hold a license 
under the provisions of this act, and notice shall be given of such transfer or assign- 
ment within ninety days from the date thereof to the Secretary of Commerce, who 
shall indorse the date of such notice on the license. If such notice is not given, 
the transfer shall be void. 

Sec 6. Fixed net locations. — That any person occupying, or desiring to occupy, 
any location where it may be lawful to construct a pound net in the waters of Alaska, 
shall cause such location to be accurately surveyed by a competent engineer, unless 
a survey thereof has already been made, in which event such existing survey may 
be used, and shall cause three maps to be made of such location from the actual sur- 
vey thereof, which shall contain a plat and description of said fishing location suffi- 
cient for its ascertainment and identification on the premises. Ssid maps shall also 
contain a certificate by the claimant, or by his agent or attorney, stating that he claims 
the fishing location shown thereon, specifying the date and number of the license 
under which the same is held, or the fact that application has been made therefor. 
Such maps, with the certificates thereon, shall be filed in the office of the commis- 
sioner of records in the district wherein the location is situated, which commissioner 
shall indorse thereon the hour and date of filing, and shall forward one of these maps 
to the Secretary of Commerce and another to the Pacific coast office of the Bureau of 
Fisheries. From and after the date of filing in the office of the commissioner of 
records, such map shall constitute full and complete notice that the locator has com- 
plied with all the provisions of this act and that such location is owned, held, occu- 
pied, and claimed by the person designated thereon as the claimant. From and after 
the filing of such map the claimant of the fishing location shown thereon, his heirs, 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 5 

administrators, executors, successors, and assigns shall have the exclusive right to 
hold, occupy, and fish in such location, to renew the license therefor, and to mort- 
gage, sell, and transfer the same during the time that he or they in other respects shall 
comply with the law pertaining thereto: Provided, That it shall not be necessary to 
file any map or plat of any fishing location before January first of the calendar year 
next after this act takes effect. 

It shall not be necessary to file any map or plat of any fishing location in any case 
where any map or plat has heretofore been filed with the Secretary of Commerce 
and a commissioner of records in the district in which the location is situated. All 
pound net or other fishing locations law fully occupied during the calendar year next 
preceding the passage of this act shall continue valid: Provided, That if any owner 
or locator shall fail to construct and operate his appliance in a bona fide manner for 
the three consecutive years covered by his license, the location shall be deemed 
abandoned. 

Each commissioner of records and the Secretary of Commerce shall keep an index 
of all such maps, showing the hour and date of filing, the names of claimants and 
serial number of the maps or plats, in the order filed, all of which shall be indorsed 
on them when filed. 

Locations for set nets may be made by erecting a permanent monument near, or 
securely anchoring a buoy on the location claimed, upon which shall be posted the 
number of the license under which such net is operated. 

Locations for stake nets may be made by erecting a permanent monument near or 
driving a pile on the location claimed, upon which shall be posted the number of the 
license under which each stake net is operated. 

This act shall not affect the use or operation of any fixed fishing appliance in a loca- 
tion regarded as lawfully occupied during the calendar year next preceding the passage 
of this act, and any and all fishing appliances may be maintained upon such location 
as though tins act had not been passed, or they may be changed to conform to the 
provisions hereof as to passageways, at the option of the claimant, owner, or holder 
thereof. 

Sec. 7. Nets, how constructed. — That no lead of any pound net in the Territory 
of Alaska shall exceed three thousand feet in length, and there shall be an end passage- 
way of at least six hundred feet and a lateral passageway of at least twenty-four hun- 
dred feet between all pound nets. The lead of any pound net may be extended to 
high-water mark on the tidelands owned by the United States or on other tidelands 
with the consent of the owners thereof. 

No supplementary wing or jigger shall be of greater length than three hundred feet 
measured over all, nor shall the outer end thereof approach within one hundred feet 
of the lead of any pound net. Not more than one wing or jigger shall be attached to 
either side of the heart of any pound net. 

No stake net shall be constructed in any other manner than by stakes driven in 
substantially a straight line. No stake net shall be in the form of a pound net or 
with hearts or pots connected therewith, and it shall be unlawful to erect or maintain 
any stake net of greater length than one thousand feet or within one thousand feet lat- 
erally or three hundred feet endwise of any other stake net: Prodded, That the restric- 
tions as to distance intervals between stake nets shall not be construed to apply to the 
use by the native Indians of stake nets not over fifty yards in length to take salmon 
for domestic consumption and not for sale. 

All set nets shall have a lateral passageway of at least three hundred feet and an end 
passageway of at least one hundred feet. A set net is not a fixed appliance within the 
meaning of this act. 

For the purpose of determining passageways, base lines shall be drawn at right 
angles to the general course of locations and shall pass through the ends of the loca- 
tions; the end passageways shall be measured at right angles to such base lines, and 
the lateral passageways shall be measured parallel with such base lines. 

It shall be unlawful to lay or cast any movable fishing appliance within three 
hundred yards of any other movable fishing appliance or within the distances of 
lateral and end passageways prescribed in this section: Provided, That the restrictions 
of this section shall not apply to drift gill nets. 

It shall be unlawful to erect or maintain any stake net or set net within the distances 
of any of the lateral and end passages as prescribed in this act. 

No purse seine shall exceed eighteen hundred feet in length, and no lead or supple- 
mentary piece of net shall be used in connection therewith. 

No gill net shall exceed two thousand five hundred feet in length and no beach 
seine shall exceed three thousand feet in length. 

Sec 8. Pound nets, how closed. — That throughout the weekly close season pre- 
scribed by law, each pound net shall be closed by an apron placed across the outer 



6 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

entrance to the heart thereof, which apron shall extend from above the surface of the 
water to the bottom, and shall be securely connected to the piles on either side of the 
heart of such pound net, fastened by rings not more than two feet apart on taut wires 
stretched from the top to the bottom of the piles. In addition, throughout said 
weekly close season, there shall be a V-shaped opening in the lead of such pound nets, 
outside the entrance to the heart adjacent to the apron of at least ten feet in width 
at the top and extending below the surface at least four feet below low water. 

Sec. 9. Where unlawful to fish. — That it shall be unlawful to take salmon by 
any means whatsoever, except with hook and line, commonly called angling, and 
except for the purposes of fish culture or scientific investigation under the direction 
or with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, in any waters where the distance 
from shore to shore is less than three' hundred feet, or with any fixed appliance in any 
waters where the distance from shore to shore is less than five hundred feet, or by 
any means except with hook and line within five hundred yards outside the mouth 
of any river less than five hundred feet in width at its mouth: Provided, That the use 
of stake nets shall be allowed in the deltas of the Yukon, Copper, Alseck, Setuck, 
and Ahrnklin Rivers and on the flats and in the divides between the Setuck and 
Ahrnklin, and that movable appliances shall be allowed to within one hundred yards 
outside of the mouths of the before-mentioned rivers and of the Karluk River. For 
the purposes of this paragraph, the width of a river shall be determined by measure- 
ments at right angles to the trend of said waters at mean high water, and all measure- 
ments of water referred to herein shall be made at mean high water, and the Secretary 
of Commerce is hereby authorized to determine and indicate by suitable markers, 
monuments, or notices the mouth of any river, or other waters referred to herein. It 
shall be unlawful to efface, destroy, or remove, or in any manner interfere with any 
marker, monument, or notice provided for in this act. 

No fishing appliance shall be operated in any river, lagoon, estuary, or other waters 
for a greater distance than one-third the width of the waters thereof: Provided, That 
this shall not apply to any drift gill net which by force of the elements may unavoid- 
ably and temporarily exceed such distance. 

Sec. 10. Weekly close period. — That it shall be unlawful to take, fish for, or kill 
any salmon of any species in any manner or by any means whatsoever, except by 
hook and line solely in angling for sport and not for commercial use, in any of the 
waters of Alaska, except in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and the waters tributary 
thereto, Cook Inlet, and the Copper River delta, from -six o'clock postmeridian of 
Friday of each week until six o'clock antemeridian of the Sunday following. 

Sec 11. Closing of waters, how provided. — That the Secretary of Commerce 
may in his discretion set aside any river or lake or parts thereof, and the waters outside 
thereof for a distance not greater than five hundred yards, in which fishing may 
be limited or entirely prohibited, but such power shall be exercised only after a 
hearing, of which due notice must be given by publication not less than sixty days 
prior thereto in a newspaper in the district affected ; and when the interested parties 
are known to the Secretary of Commerce they shall be personally notified by notice 
mailed not less than sixty days previous to such hearing. No order made under this 
section shall be effective until one calendar year after the same is made. 

Sec. 12. Planting fish unlawful without consent. — That it shall be unlawful 
to liberate, release, implant, or place any fish of any kind or description in any of 
the waters of Alaska without first obtaining the written consent of the Secretary of 
Commerce. 

Sec. 13. Unlawful to destroy food fish. — That it shall be unlawful for any 
person to waste or destroy any aquatic animal of commercial value taken or caught 
in any of the waters of Alaska: Provided, That waste or destruction shall not be deemed 
a violation of this section when resulting from unavoidable causes. 

The utilization of any part of food fishes, other than the offal and waste thereof 
from establishments preparing fish food products, shall, three years after this act 
becomes effective, be regarded" as waste if utilized in the manufacture of fertilizer, fish 
meal, fish oil, or other products not used for human consumption. 

It shall be unlawful to take any salmon or other food fish or shellfish by means of a 
spear or gaff, except for domestic consumption, and it shall be unlawful to purchase 
any salmon or other food fish or shellfish taken by means of a spear or gaff for commer- 
cial use. 

Sec 14. Pollution of waters. — That it shall be unlawful to place or cause to be 
placed in any of the waters of Alaska any explosive, poisonous, or deleterious substance 
whatsoever for the purpose of catching, taking, killing, or injuring fish, or to place or 
deposit in, or discharge or pass into, or cause to be placed where it maypass into any 
river, lake, lagoon, estuary, or waters of Alaska, any lime or other caustics, tar, petro- 
leum, asphalt, bitumen, or other carbonaceous materials, oils, acids, or sulphates, or 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 7 

compounds thereof, sawdust, shavings, slabs, edgings, mill or factory refuse, slag, 
sinkings, tailings, smelter or mine refuse, or any other substance injurious to fish, fish 
fry, or the food of fish, or which is or may be injurious to the spawn or spawning beds 
of fishes; and in the ease of substances known to be deleterious to fishes, or to fish foods 
or spawn, it shall not be necessary to prove that the pollution of the waters by these 
substances in the particular case in question has actually caused the death or destruc- 
tion of any fish, fish fry, spawn, or fish food: Provided, That nothing in this section 
shall be construed to prohibit the proper use of explosives in connection with the 
construction of buildings or improvements: Provided further, That the placing of fish 
offal in the waters shall not be deemed a violation. 

Sec. 15. Dams to be provided with fishways. — That every dam or other obstruc- 
tion across or in any stream shall be provided with a durable and efficient fishway. 
which shall be maintained in a practical and effective condition in such place, and for 
which plans and specifications shall be furnished by the Secretary of Commerce upon 
application to him, and which shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a 
sufficient quantity of water to freely admit the passage of fish through the same. Every 
owner, manager, agent, or person in charge of any such dam or obstruction who shall 
fail to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 

If any person shall fail to construct and maintain any such fishway, or to remove 
such dam or obstruction in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of Commerce, theii 
within sixty days after written notice thereof shall have been served on the owner, 
his agent, or the person in charge, such dam or. obstruction shall become a public 
nuisance, and the Secretary of Commerce may take possession of same in the name of 
the United States of America and destroy same, and no liability shall attach for such 
destruction; or the Secretary of Commerce may construct a suitable fishway, and the 
actual cost of construction of such fishway shall constitute a hen upon the dam and 
upon all the personal property of the person owning the same. No dam or obstruction 
shall be erected in any of the waters of Alaska to a height that in the judgment of the 
Secretary of Commerce shall make a fishway thereover impracticable, except as here- 
inafter provided. 

In the event that any person desires to construct a dam in any of the waters to a 
height that will make a fishway thereover impracticable, in the opinion of the Secre- 
tary of Commerce, then such person shall make application to the Secretary of Com- 
merce for a permit to construct such dam, and the Secretary of Commerce is hereby 
authorized to grant such permit, in his discretion, upon the condition that the person 
so applying for such permit shall convey to the Secretary of Commerce a site of the 
size and dimensions satisfactory to the Secretary of Commerce, at such place as may be 
selected by the Secretary of Commerce, and the applicant shall erect thereon at his 
expense a hatchery and hatchery residence, according to plans and specifications to 
be furnished by the Secretary of Commerce, and shall enter into an agreement with 
the Secretary of Commerce, secured by a good and sufficient bond, to furnish all water 
and lights without expense to operate said proposed hatchery; and no permit for the 
construction of any such dam shall be given by the Secretary of Commerce until the 
person applying for such permit shall have actually conveyed said land to the Secre- 
tary of Commerce and erected said hatchery and hatchery residence in accordance 
with the said plans and specifications. The provisions of this section shall not apply 
to cases where dams have been heretofore constructed in streams to a height where 
the construction of a fishway is impracticable. 

Sec. 16. Barricades and other obstructions. — That it shall be unlawful to 
erect or maintain any barricade, fence, or other fixed or stationary obstruction, or any 
fishing appliance other than those lawful under the provisions of this act, except for 
purposes of fish culture, in any of the waters of Alaska for the purpose of preventing 
or impeding the ascent of fish to their spawning grounds, and the Secretary of Com- 
merce is hereby authorized and directed to have any and all such unlawful obstruc- 
tions removed or destroyed. 

Sec. 17. Hatcheries. — That after passage of this act the Secretary of Commerce 
is hereby directed to purchase, or to acquire by condemnation in the manner in which 
lands are condemned or appropriated for public use, any and all of the private salmon 
hatcheries in Alaska which have been heretofore approved under the act of Congress 
of June twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and six, the same to be paid for by certifi- 
cates of purchase in such denominations as may be desired by the sellers, and such 
certificates may be used at any time for the payment pro tanto of any license fees or 
taxes upon or against or on account of the catch or pack of said sellers, their successors 
or assigns. 

The exemption from license fees and taxes in favor of the owners of private salmon 
hatcheries in Alaska as provided by section two of the act of Congress entitled "An 



8 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

act for the protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska, ' ' approved June twenty- 
sixth, nineteen hundred and six, for the release of red and king salmon fry, shall here- 
after apply to existing hatcheries until the date of their purchase by the Secretary of 
Commerce. 

Sec. 18. All marine animals included. — That the catching, killing, or utilization 
of any fish of any kind or aquatic animal of any kind or species whatsoever not specifi- 
cally provided for in this act shall he subject to the provisions of this act, but the 
Secretary of Commerce shall have power to authorize the catching, killing, or utiliza- 
tion of any such fish or marine animal under such regulations as he may prescribe. 

Sec. 19. Reports, inspections, and regulations. — That every person licensed 
to engage in the business of catching, preserving, or preparing fish or other aquatic 
animals or in manufacturing fishery products shall make detailed annual reports 
thereof to the Secretary of Commerce: on blanks furnished by him, covering all such 
facts as may be required with respect thereto for the information and use of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Congress. Such reports shall be sworn to by the superin- 
tendent, manager, or other person having knowledge of the facts, a separate blank 
being used for each establishment, and the same shall be forwarded to the Department 
of Commerce not later than December thirty-first of each year. 

The Secretary of Commerce and his duly authorized agents shall have power to 
inspect all fishing appliances and all property used in catching, packing, curing, pre- 
paring, or storing food fish or shellfish or other fish or aquatic animals, or in the fishing 
industry, and may enter upon any property at any time for any such purpose. 

To enforce the provisions of this act the Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized 
and directed to make and establish such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with 
law, as may be necessary for that purpose and for the proper investigation, inspec- 
tion, and regulation of the Alaska fisheries, and the investigation and protection of 
marine alga?, shellfish, and all other aquatic animals not otherwise provided for by 
law, and to detail from the officers and employees of the Department of Commerce a 
force adequate for the performance of the duties required. 

Sec. 20. Compensation for injuries. — That the provisions of the act approved 
May thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eight, entitled "An act granting to certain 
employees of the United States the right to receive from it compensation for injuries 
sustained in the course of their employment," shall, in addition to the classes of per- 
sons therein designated, be held to apply to any employee engaged in any hazardous 
work in Alaska of the Bureau of fisheries of the Department of Commerce, including 
the enforcement of the laws for the protection and conservation of the fisheries: 
Provided, That this section shall not be held to embrace any case arising prior to the 
passage of this act. 

Sec. 21. Territorial legislation prohibited. — That from and after the passage 
of this act the Territory of Alaska shall -not pass any legislation that has the effect of 
repealing, altering, or amending this act, nor shall said Territory impose any license 
fees or taxes upon the business hereinbefore referred to, nor upon the output thereof, 
nor upon any property, real or personal, used in said business in said Territory, and 
any such existing statutes heretofore enacted by the Territory of Alaska are hereby 
expressly disapproved. 

Sec. 22. Violations; how prosecuted. — That any violation of this act may be 
prosecuted in any district court of Alaska or in any district court of the United States 
in the States of California, Oregon, or Washington. It shall be the duty of the Secre- 
tary of Commerce to enforce the provisions of this act and the rules and regulations 
made thereunder. It shall be the duty of the district attorney to whom any violation 
is reported by any representative of the Department of Commerce or any other United 
States official to institute proceedings necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. 

Sec. 23. Fines and penalties. — That any person willfully violating any provision 
of this act, or any regulation established in pursuance thereof, shall be deemed guilty 
of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less 
than |59 nor more than $500, or by imprisonment for a term of not more than six 
months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. Any 
vessel or other apparatus or equipment used or employed in violation of any provision 
of this act, or of any regulation made thereunder, may be seized by order of the court 
or by order of the Secretary of Commerce and turned over to the United States marshal, 
and by him held subject to the payment of such fine or fines as may be imposed. 
A further fine of not more than $250 per diem may. at the discretion of the court, be 
imposed for each day the obstructions unlawful under section sixteen are maintained. 

Sec. 24. Definitions. — That for the purposes of this act the following definitions 
are adopted to apply to the words in question wherever the same shall be used : 

"Person": Any person, persons, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or 
societv. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 9 

"Pound not": Any fixed or floating fish trap or similar device constructed of 
webbing, wire, brush, or other material, and held in place by piles, anchors, or moor- 
ings, but excluding small native nets or traps which may be transported in toto by one 
man. 

"Stake net": A gill net attached or affixed to piles or stakes. 

"Set net": An anchored gill net. 

"Seine": AH forms of nets known as seines, stow nets, drag nets, drag bag nets, bag 
nets, draw nets, reef nets, and dredge nets. 

"Salmon": Wherever the Avord "salmon" occurs in this act it shall be construed 
to apply to the red, sockeye, king, silver, steelhead, chum, and pink salmon and 
trout. 

"Case": Forty-eight one-pound cans or containers, or their equivalent in weight of 
other sizes. 

"Barrel ": Two hundred pounds of fish, or fifty gallons of oil. 

"Tierce": Eight hundred pounds of fish. 

"Ton": Two thousand pounds. 

"Waters": All the Territorial waters of Alaska, together with all other waters 
contiguous to Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction. 

"River": Any stream or creek. 

"Mean high water": The mean of the lowest and highest high tides. 

"Fishery": The act of taking for commercial purposes any aquatic product. 

"Location": The actual position in the water of any fishing apparatus. 

Sec. 25. Repealing clause. — That after this act takes effect the act of Congress 
entitled "An act for the protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska," ap- 
proved June twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and six.' and all acts or parts of acts 
of Congress or the Territorial Legislature of Alaska inconsistent with the provisions 
of this act, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 

Sec. 26. When act takes effect. — That this act shall take effect from and after 
January first of the year next after its passage. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, SECRETARY 

OF COMMERCE. 

The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the committee will be glad to hear 
from you now. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chairman, my thought was that I would 
speak very briefly indeed to the committee on certain general ques- 
tions of policy which are involved in this measure, and then make 
way for the Commissioner of Fisheries, who can speak more fully 
from the standpoint of that service, and in turn present to you Mr. 
Ward T. Bower. 

In addition, Mr. Thurman, the solicitor of the department, is 
present, and will answer any questions respecting the legal phases of 
the bill. 

I want, however, to relieve the situation of certain clouds which I 
think are upon it and which may assist us all if they are so relieved. 

The statement made that this bill, H. R. 9528, includes any fur- 
bearing animals is a mistake; it includes none. By "aquatic 
animals" are meant such animals as hair seals, whales, white whales, 
walrus, crabs, shellfish, and the like. It will be quite in accordance 
with the spirit of the department in the matter if a proviso were 
inserted that it should not include any fur-bearing animals. 

The suggestion that the bill is intended in any manner whatsoever 
to affect local rights of real estate taxation is a mistake. The depart- 
ment would be very glad to have it made perfectly clear that there is 
no such purpose of any kind in the measure at all. Neither is it in 
any degree whatever correct to say that the school fund, or any other 
fund of the Territory of Alaska, is adversely affected by this measure. 
We should be very glad to have that made as clear as one can make 



10 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

it; no such statement is correct; and no questions have ever been 
asked of the department, to my knowledge, as to whether that was 
the fact. The fact is that taxation rates, license rates, are not only 
increased, but are spread over a much larger amount of territory, so 
to speak; and the intention of the bill is that the 50 per cent which 
by it shall revert to the Territory of Alaska shall provide more, and 
not less, money for the express purposes which have been stated to 
you as repealed by the bill, and that in addition the fisheries of that 
great Territory shall receive a fund much more adequate for their 
maintenance than has ever been received before, so that out of that 
there shall accrue increasingly to Alaska a much larger revenue for 
these express purposes alleged to be repealed than she has ever had 
before. The whole spirit of this measure is intended to be helpful to 
Alaska; to provide for it more and not less money; to provide for it 
more and not less industry; and to place this enormous business of 
fishing on a foundation of certitude on which it has never thus far 
stood. 

I would like very much if pages 114, commencing with the heading 
Alaskan fisheries, to 118 of my annual report could be made a portion 
of the record, because in that report (I speak of the report for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1915) this subject is dwelt upon in some 
detail. 

(The statement referred to is as follows:) 

ALASKAN FISHEEIES. 

The season of 1914 was the most prosperous in the history of the general fisheries 
of Alaska. The products were valued at $5,500,000 more than those of the previous 
season. The catch of salmon was the largest ever made, and was noteworthy for the 
enormous output of redfish in the Bristol Bay region. 

In 1914 the fishing industry of Alaska gave employment to 21,200 persons, of whom 
slightly over 4,000 were natives. The investment in the fisheries was approximately 
137,000,000, of which $31,894,000 represented the salmon industry. The catch of 
salmon aggregated 54,650,000 fish, from which there were prepared 4,056,000 cases of 
canned fish valued at $18,920,000, and miscellaneous products valued at $638,000. 
The total value of the fisheries products proper in 1914 was $21,243,000, which amount 
exceeded that of any other one year. The number of salmon canneries operated in 
Alaska in 1914 was 81, as compared with 79 in 1913 and 87 in 1912. 

The annual census of red salmon ascending Wood River was omitted in 1914, but 
was resumed in the season of 1915. The number which ascended the river in 1915 
was approximately 249,000, which number was less than that for any other year in 
which the census has been taken. 

During the year every possible effort has been made to enforce the laws and regula- 
tions, and it is believed that as much has been done as possible with the limited 
personnel provided. 

Section 6 of the act of Congress approved June 26, 1906, entitled "An act of the 
protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska," authorizes the limiting or pro- 
hibiting of fishing in certain Alaskan waters when in the judgment of the Secretary 
of Commerce such action is necessary in the interests of the fisheries, but it is required 
that before any such order shall be promulgated a hearing shall be held at which all 
persons interested may be given an opportunity to express their views. Two orders 
made in accordance with this statute are already effective. Recommendations having 
been made that the department prohibit commercial fishing in certain other waters, 
arrangements were made for holding a hearing in regard to the subject at Seattle on 
October 1, 1915. 

In the fiscal year 1914 the five privately owned salmon hatcheries in Alaska liberated 
64,897,580 red-salmon fry, thereby earning for their owners tax exemptions on canned 
salmon amounting to $25,959.03. In the fiscal year 1915 these hatcheries liberated 
79,619,500 red-salmon fry, on which the tax exemption is $31,847.80, the basis of 
exemption being 40 cents per 1,000 fry. 

In order that the department may properly discharge its functions and obligations 
with reference to the Alaskan fisheries, there should be a general revision of the fishing 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 11 

laws to meet new conditions thai have arisen. There have been protracted confer- 
ences with fishing and fish-preserving interests of Alaska, Looking to the drafting of a 
comprehensive bill that will regulate and protect the fishes and at the same time 
provide a revenue from the taxation of fishing gear and the prepared products. Among 
other feat ures of the existing iaw thai require radical treatment is the practice of giving 
rebates of taxes in proportion to the number of salmon Ery liberated from private 
hatcheries. Such hatcheries should be acquired by the Government at a fair valua- 
tion. The proposed measure was introduced in the House of Representatives, but 
tailed to become law. It is earnestly hoped that favorable action will be taken at the 
next session of Congress. 

Congress will be asked to provide further facilities for enforcing the fishery laws. 
Two staunch molor boats are now desired. These will not meet all the requirements, 
but will Jill a more urgent need. When these are provided they, jsdth the Roosevelt 
and a vessel to replace the Osprey, will be a reasonable beginning, and but a beginning, 
of the means for the supervision which over 20,000 miles of coast require, having a 
fishery of over $21,000,000 annual value. One can hardly expect in these distant 
regions that the law shall be greatly respected when the law has not shown sufficient 
respect for itself to provide respectable means for its enforcement. 

in my last report it was mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries, 
Dr. E. Lester Jones, was in the spring of 1914 instructed to proceed to Alaska to make 
an inspection there of conditions affecting the work of the Bureau of Fisheries. His 
report was submitted on December 31, 1914, and presents in detail, with many illus- 
trations from photographs taken by Dr. Jones and with maps and charts, the facts as 
he observed them. The report is a valuable contribution to the study of Alaskan 
conditions. It is available upon request of the Bureau of Fisheries. It shows in a 
striking way the fearful waste that accompanies what is sometimes called economy. 
On one page appears a photograph of the fine revenue cutter Tahoma lying in the 
harbor of Unalaska and beneath it a picture of that same vessel a few weeks later 
with the sea washing over her after she was wrecked on an uncharted rock oft' A'gattu 
Island, with the American flag floating as an example in this case of what the Govern- 
ment did not do in time to protect its own valuable property. 

The recommendations made in the report of Dr. Jones have been given careful 
consideration. Manv of them were included in the fisheries bill (H. R. 21607, 63d 
Cong.) introduced with the department's approval at the last session. This bill v. ill 
be reintroduced into the Sixty-fourth Congress. Some of the recommendations have 
already been adopted and carried out so far as facilities and resources warrant. The 
substance of others has been already treated in this report. Others are still reeehing 
consideration. 

The recommendation that at least five new Government hatcheries be built in 
places not at present receiving the benefit of fish-cultural operations has the cordial 
indorsement of this department. It has been the subject of frequent recommenda- 
tions to Congress. Even if the Goverrment should take over the private hatcheries 
now in Alaska, there will still be need for these additional ones. . 

On April 29, 1915. the Legislature of Alaska passed an act imposing additional license 
fees on certain kinds of business, including fisheries, salteries, fish traps, and gill nets. 
It at once became apparent that if the Legislature of Alaska exercises this power the 
result is double taxation on the persons engaged in such kinds of business, and further, 
a dual control would exist between the Department of Commerce and the Legislature 
of Alaska over at least a branch of such kinds of business. The latter condition is the 
one that primarily concerns the Department of Commerce. The control of the fisheries 
of Alaska is by law placed in that department, which is responsible not only for their 
preservation but also for their growth and development. Clearly, if the Territory of 
Alaska has a joint right of control over the whole or any portion of such fisheries the 
plans of the Department of Commerce for their growth and development may meet 
with serious interference, and the result maybe most harmful to the industry. If, for 
example, the Legislature of Alaska may impose license fees and taxes to an extent 
that might seriously impair the industry by making it unprofitable, the Department 
of Commerce, charged with the responsibility of caring for this industry, would be 
practically helpless. 

Not even the possibility of such a situation, much less the situation itself, should be 
allowed to exist. As long as Congress sees fit to continue the control of the Alaska 
fisheries in the Department of Commerce that control should be exclusive. It is 
respectfully suggested that Congress should either repeal the proviso contained in 
section 3 of the act of August 24, 1912, which authorizes the Legislature of Alaska to 
impose other and additional taxes or licenses, or so amend it as to exclude fisheries 
and kindred occupations in Alaska from its operation. This would leave the law as 
it stood before the passage of the act of August 24, 1912, and all license fees and taxes 



12 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

for the carrying on of fisheries and kindred occupations in Alaska would then be fixed 
by Congress. 

It may be urged that section 20 of the act of August 24, 1912, meets the situation. It 
reads thus: 

"All laws passed by the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska shall be submitted to 
the Congress by the President of the United States, and, if disapproved by Congress, 
they shall be null and of no effect." 

This provision, however, does not meet the case, for unless by its terms Congress 
actually disapproves of the acts of the Alaskan Legislature they continue to have the 
force and effect of law. Applying it to the case under consideration it would mean 
that Congress would have to disapprove each and every license tax or law that might 
be passed by the Legislature of Alaska on the fisheries in that Territory. 

There should be no doubt on this important matter, which is respectfully com- 
mended to the attention of Congress. The difficulty appears to arise from the possible 
double interpretation of the provision of section 3 of the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. , 
512), which establishes the Territory of Alaska. 

The sundry civil bill making appropriations for the fiscal year 1915 provided for an 
increase in the number of wardens in the Alaska service. This made it possible for 
the department to extend to a limited extent its work in the way of protecting the 
fisheries and fur-bearing animals of Alaska. 

Secretary Redfield. I wish now — and it will be my only part in 
this, unless you prefer otherwise; — to face very squarely the large 
question of policy which is involved in this bill. It is avowedly based 
upon the continuance of Federal jurisdiction over the fisheries of 
Alaska; that is, the existing law of Congress. We have no right to 
operate except under that law. This bill assumes that law to exist, 
and is intended to make it more fruitful and helpful to Alaska, and 
of course the department could proceed in no other way. 

But the department is forced to face the fact that there is an effort 
in mind, if not in being, to take away the fisheries of Alaska from 
out of the Federal jurisdiction and put them solely under the juris- 
diction of the Territory of Alaska itself, and I purposely raise that 
question, not to discuss it on its merits, for it is a matter of policy 
which Congress alone can deal with, but to place before you certain 
facts without comment, so far as I may be able to avoid it, which 
bear upon that question a ; nd which are fundamental to the considera- 
tion of this or any other measure affecting the Alaska fisheries. 

There is a question, therefore, to be settled in the minds of Congress 
before this measure can take place, or any other, namely, shall the 
Federal Government continue the control of the Alaska fisheries or 
shall Alaska Territory do it solely and alone by itself? As is well 
known, the various States of this country operate their own fisheries, 
under the control of their own State laws, and we are in daily touch 
with every one of them and in perfect accord with them all. The 
hatcheries of our service operate in the most entire harmony with all 
the fish commissioners and the fish hatcheries of all the States in the 
Union. There is not the faintest objection, Mr. Chairman, on the 
part of the Departmevit of Commerce to Alaska's running all its own 
fisheries if Congress thinks it ought to do so. 

The Chairman. Will you repeat that statement? I did not 
catch it. 

Secretary Redfield. There is not the faintest objection on the 
part of the Department of Commerce to Alaska's running all its own 
fisheries, if Congress thinks it ought to do so. I want to make that 
as clear as day. The Bureau of Fisheries does not seek any exten- 
sion of its powers; it has plenty to do without it. The Department 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 13 

of Commerce does not want more work to do in Alaska; it will be 
content to do less, if Congress so wills. 

If it has to do its work, however, it wants to do it better than the 
law now makes it possible to do it — better for Alaska, as well as 
better for all the people doing business there. At present the situa- 
tion is hampered by a dual control, which can only work harm and 
discord. 

The Legislature of Alaska assumes, from an interpretation of the 
act of August 24, 1912, certain rights of licensing fishing operations, 
having passed, on April 29, 1915, an act imposing additional licenses. 
We do not object to their doing so. What we do object to is a sys- 
tem under which the same business is subject at once to a Federal 
license and a local license in addition to a real-estate tax, whereby 
there is a dual control and a dual right of taxation; whereby a man 
continuing the business is subject to an indeterminate and double 
supervision of this kind over his cannery, exactly as if, for example, 
the State of Maryland exercised in the city of Washington the right 
to impose taxes, wholly irrespective of what Congress itself might 
seek to impose in the city of Washington. That is the present con- 
dition in Alaska — a duplex, double system of taxation in the form 
of licenses. 

We think that is wrong. One system ought to exist, and only 
one; one control, in our judgment, ought to exist, and only one. 
And that question ought to be settled. 

This bill we propose, in part, as a means of settling that in accord- 
ance with existing law. But we are not at all afraid to have it set- 
tled by a law which shall turn over the whole thing to Alaska, if 
Congress sees fit, when it knows all the facts, to do so. I hope I 
have made the attitude of the department perfectly clear, that we 
are seeking no addition to our powers; that we are willing, if Con- 
gress so desires and when the matter shall have been fully discussed, 
to surrender any and all powers in Alaska that we possess. We will 
operate our fish hatcheries there, if Alaska takes control, as we do 
in Oregon, Washington, and California, with pleasure, and no doubt 
in accord with the local authorities. Wo should be very glad, indeed, 
to bo permitted to remove our steamers and our launches from 
Alaskan waters and use them in other places where they are needed, 
if Alaska is ready to substitute, at its own expense, the steamers 
and the launches that it needs. 

Now, in order that that question may be considered broadly and 
on its merits, let us consider for a moment what the facts of the 
situation are. I might put the question in this way: Shall the 
Government turn over to a population of 55,000 white people, 
omitting the Indians and Eskimos — and the 55,000 include women 
and children — jurisdiction over the fisheries in a territory double 
the area of Texas, and with a coast line greater than that of the 
entire continental United States, in which the population is scat- 
tered so that for hundreds of square miles there is none, and in which 
this single industry has an investment in excess of $37,000,000 and 
has an annual product, finding an international market, in excess of 
$21,000,000 per annum. 

Now, that is a statement of the problem. If we turned over to the 
people of the State of Maine the entire fisheries of the Atlantic coast, 
there would be fifteen times as many people to look after the fisheries, 



14 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

and the fisheries themselves would be on less than half the coast line. 
The problem is simply whether, in the course of its development, 
which we all hope will* be large, and which 1 will do anything in my 
power to encourage, Alaska has reached the point where it can take 
control of so enormous a problem and handle it either to its own or the 
public's satisfaction. 

The problem is not altogether an easy one. The investment that 
would be required if Alaska were to take over this problem, even on 
the basis of its present imperfect control — for I am very free to admit 
that the department is not as yet enabled to supervise these fisheries 
as we wish it could — the plant that would be immediately necessary 
to take over this control would be one large steamer, costing certainly 
$250,000, a small one costing $50,000; two launches costing $10,000; 
and there would be an additional amount necessary to take over the 
five private hatcheries which survive out of the nine that once were 
there, at a cost of about $100,000. There would be necessary, if 
Alaska were to provide the mere physical machinery necessary to 
take care of this work, an immediate expenditure of $410,000, at the 
least. 

We should be glad to have the steamer Roosevelt, which we have 
just purchased for this work, retained upon the Atlantic coast; we 
should be very glad to withdraw the steamer Osprey, for use upon the 
Columbia River or Puget Sound. We have just been given $10,000 
for additional launches ; we should be very glad if we could spend it on 
the Gulf or the Atlantic. There is no reluctance, gentlemen, on our 
part, to turn over this whole problem to Alaska, «if and when the 
problem shall have been worked out fully. 

The Chairman. Well, what is the necessity for this legislation. 
What is there in the industry in Alaska that demands legislation ? 

Secretary Redfield. You ask a question, Mr. Chairman, which 
will be answered more fully by the Commissioner of Fisheries than 
I am able to answer. Let me say that we who have this problem in 
hand have been constantly impressed with its vastness, for if you will 
be kind enough to look at the map I have placed in your hands you 
will see that the coast upon which we must operate in Alaska is over 
four times greater than the entire coast line of Great Britain and 
Ireland, and greater than the entire Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coast 
lines of the United States; that the shores of Alaska are 26,000 miles 
of water front. 

We have been impressed with the great and vast problem before 
us; and my annual reports will show, and the appropriations will 
show, a growing appreciation, still, I regret to say, insufficient, on the 
part of Congress of this enormous job. So we have purchased this 
seagoing steamer which we have never had; so we have purchased 
these launches for use in this work; so, two years ago, a small steamer; 
and now for the first time we expect to provide reasonably adequate 
supervision at the end of a number of years of effort. But we find 
this peculiar condition of double taxation; we find the business 
uncertain as to who is to control it — to whom are they accountable ? 
Are they accountable to the local community in whole or to what 
extent ? 

And we find that the present law is in many minor respects in- 
effective, and as a result of our experience, therefore, and as a result 
of study for some months on the part of the former Deputy Com- 






ALASKA FISHERIES. 15 

missioner of Fisheries, Mr. E. Lester Jones, now Superintendent of the 
Coast and Geodetic Survey, who will be here next week to speak to 
you, this bill has been drawn, based frankly upon the continuance of 
Federal control, in order to relieve the weaknesses that now exist, so 
far as it may be possible by law in the present situation. 

I will be very glad to make way now for the solicitor of the depart- 
ment, or for the Commissioner of Fisheries, who can speak more fully. 
I simply want to lay down the broad lines of policy before you and to 
get our attitude clearly before your minds. 

The Chairman. This bill was framed in the department, was it? 

Secretary Redfield. It was framed in the department, as a result 
of a great many months of study and as a result of conferences indi- 
vidually with the law officers of the department and the experts 
of the department and with the parties concerned; and I think I can 
say that it has the substantially unanimous, if not the wholly unani- 
mous, support of the persons upon whom these taxes are to be im- 
posed. 

Mr. Godwin. Mr. Secretary, what is the relative ratio as between 
receipts and expenditures of the fisheries of Alaska ? Have you those 
figures ? 

Secretary Redfield. I do not think I quite understand. 

Mr. Godwin. I mean the amount of money we expend up there 
annually and the amount of receipts ? 

Secretary Redfield. From the fisheries ? 

Mr. Goodwin. From the fisheries. 

Secretary Redfield. Our total outlay at present, I think, is 
$60,000 a year for Alaska; is it not, Dr. Smith ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Redfield. I believe that is all we are allowed to expend 
there. I believe we shall have more next year. And with that we 
supervise the fisheries, the total value of whose product is in excess of 
$21,000,000 per annum. 

Mr. Goodwin. It is a good investment. 

Secretary Redfield. The situation has been very humiliating for 
the Government, and we will join with Judge Wickersham in any 
criticisms he might make of the past supervision as being inadequate. 
For example, it has been our unfortunate necessity to call upon the 
canneries to loan us the boats with which to transport our officers 
who were to do the supervising of those same canneries, and it is 
true that the Government has not, up to the last two or three years, 
certainly, taken this task as seriously as it should, and certainly has 
not as adequately equipped itself as it should. 

But now that day has gone by, and now we have this plant in the 
service, and I think we are able adequately, and I think econom- 
ically, as I think those figures show, to do this work, and we have the 
entire accord and good will, so far as we know, of the fishing industries 
throughout — all sides of the fishing industry. 

Mr. Hadley. Have you made an estimate of the amount that 
would be yielded on the basis that the present schedule has yielded 
back to the Territory ? 

Secretary Redfield. Financially ? 

Mr. Hadley. Yes; you were speaking of the amount. 

Secretary Redfield. Do you know, Dr. Smith ? 



16 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Hadley. Well, if that should come from the other witnesses, 
we can wait until they make their statements. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes; I think the others can answer that 
better than I can. 

I want before I go, however, to raise just one more question. I 
want to clear the air as to any possible monopoly here. It is a matter 
of record that we have been more than once requested by individual 
interests of various kinds to grant special privileges in a form which 
would provide for them some peculiar right not granted to others, 
or reserve for them some special privilege not open to others. 

That has been continuously resisted; and I think the record u per- 
fectly clear that we stand f.rmly opposed to anything which will in 
any way whatever grant anybody any specie 1 privilege or particular 
interest ovtr and above those which are extended to all. There is 
in this bill no such element concealed. I think I had better 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). Eid I understand you a while ago to 
say that if this bill in any way prevented the Territorial legislature 
from imposing a property tax — that you desired that element of the 
bill changed ? 

Secretary Redfield. You said property tax? 

Mr. Hardy. Property tax; yes. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes, indeed; I would be very glad to have 
it changed. 

Mr. Hardy. I call your attention to this reading of section 21 of 
the bill, which you doubtless have noticed, from what you said 
before : 

Nor shall said Territory impose any license fees or taxes upon the business herein- 
before referred to, nor upon the output thereof, nor upon any property, real or per- 
sonal, used in said business in said Territory, and any such existing statutes here- 
tofore enacted by the Territory of Alaska are hereby expressly disapproved. 

Now, that part of this bill, I understood you to say, ought to be 
amended ? 

Secretary Redfield. It ought to be amended; yes. 

Mr. Hardy. And section 1, it would be possible to give that a 
construction that would prevent taxes on the part of the Territory 
for locfd government or support of local institutions; then that ought 
also to be amended ? 

Secretary Redfield. Ought also to be amended. 

Mr. Hardy. Then, I understand that section 4, which takes these 
taxes and throws half of them into the Treasury of the United 
States — that, in your judgment, they have so increased the tax that 
the remaining half will be greater than that now received and dis- 
tributed to the Territorial purposes ? • 

Secretary Redfield. That is the intention of it. 

Mr. Hardy. So that by increasing the total amount, even though 
you take half of it for Federal uses, you still leave more to the Ter- 
ritory than they now get ? 

Secretary Redfield. That is the intention. 

Mr. Hardy. I have not been over the bill. This is the first time 
I have ever read it, I am sorry to say, and I have not read it all yet. 

The Chairman. Judge Wickersham, do you want to ask the 
Secretary any questions ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, no. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 17 

STATEMENT OF HON. HUGH M. SMITH, COMMISSIONER OF 

FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. Will you state, for the record, your name and 
your official position, Dr. Smith ( 

Dr. Smith. Hugh M. Smith, Commissioner of Fisheries. 

I would like to make a very brief statement in regard to the his- 
tory of this bill — the evolution of the bill. — because it has been an 
evolution and not a sudden product. 

For a number of years the revision of the present fisheries law has 
been under consideration. In 1912 and 1913 very protracted hear- 
ings were held by the Senate Committee on Fisheries. In 1914, 1915, 
and 1916 the Bureau of Fisheries gave much attention to the matter 
of new legislation to meet existing conditions, and held conferences 
among its own staff and with persons representing the Alaska 
fisheries. 

The present bill is modeled largely on the bill that was introduced 
in the closing days of the last Congress; it represents another season's 
experience and observations on the part of the bureau staff, and for 
that reason differs somewhat from other bills. 

The Chairman. What bill is that to which you refer? 

Dr. Smith. This is the bill introduced by Mr. Carlin in the last days 
of the last Congress. 

The Chairman. Is that the one that is now pending before the 
Committee on Ways and Means ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Dr. Smith. That was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is H. R. 

Mr. Wickersham. 753. 

The Chairman. No; that was in the last Congress. 

Mr. Wickersham. But the same bill that is now pending before the 
Committee on Ways and Means — H. R. 753. 

Dr. Smith. This bill presents various features of law that have been 
presented in other bills for the last three years. The main objects of 
this bill should be set forth from the department's viewpoint. 

The Chairman. Now, can you give the genesis of this bill, the first r 
and the subsequent bills from which it was drawn and developed 1 

Dr. Smith. Well, this bill began with the earliest fishery legisla- 
tion for Alaska, in 1889, and contains features that are embodied in 
all the bills that have become laws, and most of the bills that have 
been introduced up to the present time; and I will refer in a few 
moments to the new features of this bill, because, contrary to what 
Mr. Wickersham has said, there are numerous new features in this 
bill, which we believe will appeal to the members of the committee. 

I take it that the chief interest of Congress in the fisheries of 
Alaska is in seeing them conducted in such a way that their perpetu- 
ation is assured, and that coming generations may be able to draw 
on these matchless resources for vast supplies of food. This interest 
is committed to and shared by the Bureau of Fisheries, and actuates 
it in administering the law and in recommending modifications 
thereof. 

46232—16 2 



18 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

This bill has as its essential purpose the preservation of the fish- 
eries resources of Alaska. The restrictive features are drawn solely 
with this end in view, after a very thorough consideration of past 
and present conditions. It is my belief that the bill meets the 
present requirements and indications in this respect, although a 
person would be very rash to predict that this bill would be wholly 
applicable at the end of any given term of years, because, with the 
tremendous development which has come to the fisheries of Alaska 
and which is now going on, it is almost certain that modifications of 
law will be necessary at rather frequent intervals. 

So far as can now be seen, however, the protective features of this 
bill are ample and, I believe, are equal or superior to those of any 
State having extensive commercial fishing interests to deal with. 

It is possible that this bill may be amended in some of its details 
and amended to advantage. I feel that in its major features it is a 
measure of such merit that if a similar law had been in force in many 
of our States the serious depletion of certain fisheries would not have 
occurred, and that if a similar law were in force in some of the States 
to-day, sadly depleted fisheries would be restored- 

I would like now to refer briefly to the new features of this bill. 
In the first place there is provided a general license system applicable 
to all branches of the industry, including the catching, curing, and 
canning of fish and fish products. This system is primarily for pur- 
poses of regulation; incidentally it yields a revenue. The license 
system is a feature of all up-to-date State fishery legislation and is 
regarded as highly advantageous, because of the hold that it gives 
the administrative officers in the enforcement of the law. A man or 
a corporation can not engage in the fishing industry in Alaska under 
this bill without obtaining a license, and having obtained a license, 
if a person or a firm violates the provisions of law, then that license 
may be withheld and the person or firm will be deprived of the oppor- 
tunity of conducting the business. I could mention half a dozen or 
more of the States in which this feature is incorporated in new 
legislation. 

The Chairman. You might put them into the record if you recall 
them now. 

Dr. Smith. I will supply the information later. 
(The statement referred to is as follows :) 

Memorandum regarding the practices of certain States in the matter of requiring licenses 

for fishing operations. 

Arkansas: Devices other than hook or line $25. 00 

California : 

Market fishermen's licenses (bond, $2,000) 10. 00 

Wholesale fish dealers, United States citizens 5. 00 

Wholesale fish dealers, not United States citizens 20. 00 

Illinois : 

License fees for net fishing, the amounts in parentheses being for 
nonresidents — 

Each 100 yards of seine ($10) 5. 00 

Dip or fyke nets ($2) 1.00 

Gill or pound nets, fished with steam tug ($200) 25. 00 

Gill or pound nets, fished with gasoline launch ($50) 15. 00 

Gill or pound nets, fished with sail or row boat ($30) 10. 00 



ALASKA FISHERIES; 19 

Iowa: 

Seines, each 500 yards $10. 00 

Pound nets with more than 100 feet leaders 4. 00 

Pound nets with less than 100 feet leaders 1. 00 

Each bait, dip, hoop, or fyke net .50 

Each 300 feet of trammel net 5. 00 

Louisiana : 

Seines, less than 300 feet 25. 00 

Seines, 300 to 600 feet 50. 00 

Seines, 600 to 900 feet 100. 00 

Wholesale fish dealing, depending on the amount of business and 

whether resident or nonresident operators $5. 00-150. 00 

Buying or selling diamond-back terrapins 25. 00-200. 00 

Minnesota: 

Seines, pound nets, or dip nets in the Mississippi River 5. 00 

Pound nets in international waters 25. 00 

Gill nets in international waters 10. 00 

Seines in interstate waters, 100 to 500 feet, per 100 feet 1. 00 

Seines in interstate waters, 600 to 1,000 feet, per 100 feet 2. 00 

Seines in interstate waters, 1,100 to 1 ,500 feet, per 100 feet 3. 00 

Seines in interstate waters, 1 ,600 to 2,000 feet, per 100 feet 4. 00 

Seines in interstate waters, 2,100 to 2,500 feet, per 100 feet 5. 00 

Seines in interstate waters, 2,600 to 4,000 feet, per 100 feet 6. 00 

Gill nets in interstate waters up to 2,000 feet 5. 00 

Gill nets, for each additional 1,000 feet 5. 00 

New York: Various licenses required for commercial fishing. 

North Carolina: Various licenses required for commercial fishing. 

Ohio: Various licenses required for commercial fishing. 

Oregon: 

Pound nets or traps, first class 25. 00 

Pound nets or traps, second class 15. 00 

Stationary fish wheels 35. 00 

Scow fish wheels 25. 00 

Purse seines (not more than 1,750 feet) 25. 00 

Gill nets 7. 00 

Set nets 3. 75 

Licenses to take crabs, clams, mussels, and crawfish! 1. 00 

Wholesale fish dealers (in addition $1 per ton on gross weight of 

salmon, shad, and sturgeon handled) 10. 00 

Boats transporting fish to canneries 100. 00 

Each 1,000 chinook salmon caught in the Columbia River before 

Aug. 25 5. 00 

Each 1,000 chinook salmon caught in the Columbia River after 

Aug. 26 3. 00 

Each 1,000 blueback salmon 1.50 

Each 1,000 silver-side or clog salmon 1. 00 

Each sturgeon . 07 J 

Pennsylvania: 

Seines 2. 50 

Fish baskets ■ 1. 00 

Each row or small sailboat fishing gill nets 5. 00 

Each boat of any kind under 10 tons fishing gill nets 10. 00 

Each boat of any kind, 10 to 20 tons, fishing gill nets 15. 00 

Each boat over 20 tons fishing °ill nets 20. 00 

Pound nets 10. 00 

South Carolina: 

Each sturgeon net 10. 00 

Each shad, unless sold locally . 03£ 

Each local person or firm shipping sturgeon or caviar 50. 00 

Nonresidents fishing for shad or sturgeon 10. 00 

Nonresidents buying or shipping sturgeon or caviar 500. 00 

Tennessee: Each fish net or basket 2. 00 

Washington: 

First-class pound nets, traps, or weirs on Columbia River 25. 00 

Second-class pound nets, etc., on Columbia River 10. 00 

Pound nets, traps, or weirs except on Columbia River, Willapa 

Harbor, and Grays Harbor 50. 00 



20 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Washington — Continued . 

First-class purse seines $50. 00 

Second-class purse seines 25. 00 

Gill or drift nets 5. 00 

Set nets 2. 50 

Drag nets not exceeding 250 feet 2. 50 

Drag nets, 250 to 400 feet 7. 50 

Drag nets, 400 to 500 feet 15. 00 

Drag nets, each additional foot .03 

Scow fish wheels 15. 00 

Stationary fish wheels, first class 25. 00 

Stationary fish wheels, second class 10. 00 

Scow, boat, or other craft transporting fish to canneries 100. 00 

Dealing in salmon, other than canneries, per ton of fish bought 

or sold .90 

Wisconsin: 

Seines, first 500 feet, per 100 feet 1. 00 

Seines, second 500 feet, per 100 feet 2. 00 

Seines, third 500 feet, per 100 feet 3. 00 

Seines, fourth 500 feet, per 100 feet 4. 00 

Seines, fifth 500 feet, per 100 feet 5. 00 

Seines, 2,500 to 4,000 feet, per 100 feet 6. 00 

Gill nets, first 2,000 feet 5. 00 

Gill nets, each additional 1,000 feet 5. 00 

Pound nets 5. 00 

Dr. Smith. Another new feature in this bill is the taxing of the 
catch at its source, so that every person or firm obtaining products 
from the waters of the Territory shall pay a tax in proportion to the 
quantity and value of the catch. In view of the yearly increasing 
amount of food fish that are used in other ways than by canning 
and salting, the only methods recognized and taxed under existing 
law, it is suggested to Congress in this bill that if additional revenue is 
desired and taxation is to be general, it will be proper to impose a 
nominal tax that will reach the food fish sold fresh, iced, frozen, 
smoked, mild-cured and prepared in other ways than by salting or 
canning. 

Mr. Curry. I beg your pardon. Did you say that they were to be 
taxed when they were caught? 

Dr. Smith. Taxed at the source as soon as possible after capture, 
or at the time they are put on the market or prepared for sale. 

Mr. Curry. Well, that is different. 

Mr. Hadley. Are they taxed so much a thousand ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir; that is provided for in section 2 of the bill. 

Mr. Curry. I did not understand how it was possible for you to 
collect the taxes on the fish as they. are taken out of the water; that is 
all. 

Dr. Smith. Or as they are 

Mr. Curry. Caught; yes. 

Dr. Smith. No; as they are disposed of by the fisherman. 

Mr. Curry. Well, that may be practicable. 

Dr. Smith. Whether such fish are sold fresh, or whether they are 
caught at a plant where the sale of fresh fish is impossible, they may 
be taxed when put on the market in a salted, smoked, mild-cured, 
frozen, or iced condition. 

Mr. Curry. You would not tax them twice then ? 

Dr. Smith. There is no double taxation, but both fisherman and 
manufacturer pay a tax. 

Mr. Curry. Suppose I was a fisherman up there, and I caught a 
lot of fish, and I brought them to a factory and sold them to a factory. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 21 

Now, they are taxed, and when they are smoked or salted, are they 
taxed again ? 

Dr. Smith. When they are canned they will be taxed again as a 
canned product. 

Secretary Redfield. But not otherwise. 

Dr. Smith. Well, if these fish were brought in the cannery and sold 
in the cannery as fresh fish, by a fisherman who is not employed by 
the cannery but is simply disposing of his catch to the cannery, then 
it is the intention to tax his catch. Is that what you wanted to know ? 

Mr. Hardy. What section of the bill is that ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Section 2, page 3. 

Mr. Curry. Then you would tax the independent fisherman for his 
catch when he sold it to the cannery ? 

Dr. Smith. Let me make this perfectly clear: The fish that are 
canned — placed on the market in a canned condition — will pay a tax 
as canned fish, regardless of their source. 

Mr. Curry. Yes; we understand that. 

Dr. Smith. But the fish that the independent fisherman may dis- 
pose of will pay a direct tax. 

Mr. Curry. Well, if an independent fisherman sells his catch to the 
cannery, is his catch taxed when he sells it ? 

Dr. Smith. I think that is provided for. 

Mr. Britton. They are taxed. 

Mr. Curry. Well, is the cannery fisherman taxed ? Suppose the 
cannery sends out a lot of fishermen and they catch fish, are they 
taxed % 

Dr. Smith. No; I would not suppose so. The tax on fish caught 
by cannery employees would be paid by the cannery. Under this 
bill — let me get it perfectly clear — under this new bill the rate of 
taxation on canned fish is reduced in order that the 

Mr. Curry (interposing). Well, that is perfectly clear. 

Dr. Smith (continuing). In order that the tax may fall also on the 
fish in the raw state. 

Mr. Curry. Well, that is taxing the fish twice, it seems to me; 
that is, an independent fisherman brings in a catch to the cannery. 
Now, he is taxed on his catch when he sells it, but the cannery seines 
out fishermen who bring in a catch, and they are not taxed, are they ? 

Dr. Smith. It is the intention to tax their catch. 

Mr. Curry. They are to be taxed ? 

Dr. Smith. To tax the raw fish as they leave the hands of the 
fishermen and also to tax the finished product as it leaves the hands 
of the manufacturers. 

Mr. Curry. Do you not think you could simplify that system of 
taxation a little bit ? 

Dr. Smith. This is a new feature which we are submitting to the 
committee, because under the present law a very large part of the 
catch of fish in Alaska, an increasingly large part every year, will 
and does escape any kind of taxation. All the fish sold — fresh, frozen, 
mild cured, or smoked — now pay no tax whatever, and that branch 
of the business is increasing every year. 

Mr. Hadley. This tax falls upon every licensee, I notice by the 
terms of the bill? 

Dr. Smith. Every licensee. 



22 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Hadley. Every licensee; and the licensee is the only man who 
.pays taxation, and he pays $2, $1, 75 cents, or 50 cents, according 
to the class of fish, per thousand. 

Mr. Hardy. Are you not a little mistaken in saying that if the 
cannery sends out fishermen to catch fish for them they would not 
have to pay a tax on the fish in the raw state ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes; that is a mistake. It is the intention that their 
catch shall pay a tax just the same as the independent fishermen's. 

Mr. Hardy. In line 6, page 3, it provides that he must pay on the 
product taken by him, whether he sells it to somebody else or not, 
it seems to me. 

Mr. Curry. I think the bill is clear, but I did not quite understand 
your statement. 

Dr. Smith. I was not quite ready to take that point up at this time. 

Mr. Goodwin. Does any representative of the Government super- 
vise the catch and keep tab on the number of fish caught? 

Dr. Smith. Not now. 

Mr. Goodwin. Do you leave it to the honesty of the licensee ? 

Mr. Curry. They do not tax them now. 

Mr. Goodwin. There is no tax now on raw fish? 

Dr. Smith. No, sir; only on the canned salmon and the salted 
salmon, and on oil and fertilizer made from herring. 

Mr. Goodwin. The licensee sells his fish, turns them over to a can- 
nery, does he, and there a tax is imposed, wherever he turns them 
over ? Suppose he goes elsewhere than the Territory of Alaska ? 
Suppose he should drift down to Washington, or somewhere down 
there, would the same law as this apply there? Suppose he should 
go to some cannery other than a cannery in Alaska for the sale of his 
catch, where would the Government get its revenue — its hold? 

Dr. Smith. It is not feasible to take the fish out of Alaska for can- 
ning purposes. But there are difficulties that would be presented 
by this new feature of the bill, and we would have to work them out 
by experience. 

Mr. Hardy. If I understand it right, every licensee who catches 
any of these fish must pay on his raw catch, whether he catches for 
himself or for somebody else? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir; except for family or home consumption. 

Mr. Hardy. Yes; he may be operating by the wholesale and can- 
ning his own catch, but he must pay on the raw catch? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. I notice that section 19 of the bill — that bears on the 
question I was asking — provides that the licensee shall report to the 
Secretary of Commerce on blanks furnished by him annually the 
amount of his catch, and that that must be sworn to ? 

Dr. Smith. We realize that it will be difficult to reach some of 
these smaller fishermen; but they are a negligible quantity when the 
entire industry is considered, and eventually a very perfect system 
could be evolved. 

Mr. Hadley. We have had that same system in the State of 
Washington for a great many years, as far as this feature of counting 
the catch and reporting is concerned. Of course, there they report 
to the State commission, and the rate varies; but as far as the sys- 
tem is concerned, it is the same system. 

Mr. Curry. This taxes the individual if he sells his catch ? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 23 

Dr. Smith. If he makes a living; out of his fishing, he 'would be 
taxed, but it' he was catching for his winter use there would be no 
tax; there is a special exemption in his favor in that case. 

Mr. Curry. Well, nearly all of the independent fishermen up there 
are Indians; most of the white fishermen for the canneries go up 
from Portland or San Francisco or Seattle in the summer time, and 
the only regular fishermen that make a business of selling to the 
canneries are Indians. 

Mr. Warren. There are a good many white men; they are gen- 
erally white men that have married Indian women. 

Mr. Curry. Well, they are Indians in effect. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, the same law applies, as I understand, whether 
they are white men or Indians. 

Dr. Smith. Yes; when they are engaged in the same line of 
industry. 

Mr. Hardy. Each one must pay and each one has the same right 
of exemption when they are intended for family use. 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. Under this bill, in addition to the articles 
already mentioned, there will be taxed whale oil and fertilizer, salt 
cod, salt herring, and various miscellaneous products. A larger 
revenue than ever before will be yielded by this bill, and this will be 
disposed of in a new way, as has already been pointed out by the 
Secretary. Under existing law, all revenues arising from the fisheries 
in Alaska are turned into the Alaskan fund, to be disposed of by the 
Territory. 

Under this bill, 50 per cent of the revenue is disposed of in the 
same way, and 50 per cent is turned into the Treasury of the United 
States, to constitute a special fund which is available for appropria- 
tion by Congress for fishery work in Alaska. 

Mr. Goodwin . Will that apply only to fisheries work in Alaska ? 

Dr. Smith. That is the purpose of this bill. 

Mr. Goodwin. That will not apply to any other work in Alaska — 
such as roads and schools? 

Dr. Smith. This bill has nothing to do with that feature. The 
roads and schools are already under the Territorial government, a 
fund is already created for that purpose, and that fund is continued. 

Mr. Hardy. Can you give us any idea as to whether this bill will 
sustain that revenue from a species of license taxes and product 
taxes '? What is the source of revenue under the present law ? Have 
you any license fees now to a man engaged in catching fish up there ? 
In other words, those license fees fixed in section 2 of the bill, how 
do they compare with the present revenues % 

Dr. Smith. On the basis of last year's catch, they would yield a 
revenue considerably in excess of $200,000, I think. 

Mr. Hardy. Under this law % 

Dr. Smith. Under this bill. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, what was the revenue yielded under the law as 
it existed % 

Dr. Smith. A statement that was supplied to us in March, 1916, 
by the Treasury Department covering the cash receipts from the 
taxation of the Alaska fisheries for a series of years, from 1906 to 
1915, showed $166,000 received in the year 1915. 

Mr. Hardy. And what would have been the receipts under this 
bill from the same business ? 



24 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Dr. Smith. The total receipts under this bill would have been over 
$200,000; I do not know how much over, because I have not seen the 
figures for the total catch for last year. Have you figured it out, 
Mr. Bower? 
, Mr. Bower. It will be approximately $230,000 or $240,000. 

Mr. Curry. Then it would not be twice what it was under the 
present law? 

Mr. Bower. Not this first year. 

Mr. Curry. You paid into the Alaska fund last year $166,000. 
Under this bill, you would not pay that much into the Alaska fund ? 

Mr. Hardy. If your net income would have been $230,000, you 
would have paid only $115,000 into the Treasury under this bill. 
Now, have you any way of showing to us that the Alaskan part of 
these revenues under this bill will be something near, or quite near, 
to what they would be under the present law ? 

Dr. Smith. Well, I judge that at the beginning the Territory of 
Alaska may experience some loss in revenue from this particular 
source ; but ultimately I would expect the revenues of the Territory 
to be materially increased. The Secretary's statement on this 
matter had reference to the general effect of the new schedule and 
not to the actual returns in a given year. Under this bill a larger 
sum than ever before will become available for the benefit of Alaska. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, let me see if I understand, or if I have drawn the 
right inference there. My understanding is that your idea is that 
by using part of this revenue for the building up of the business, 
you will ultimately increase the volume of the business to such an ex- 
tent as to more than compensate Alaska for what she will lose in the 
beginning ? 

Dr. Smith. That is the idea, sir. And there is this further feature, 
that at present Alaska obtains a revenue only from salted salmon and 
canned salmon. Under this bill products prepared in other ways, 
and other products than salmon, will be subject to a revenue. The 
tendency of the fisheries is for larger and larger quantities of salmon 
to be disposed of in other ways than by canning. So that, in pro- 
portion to the catch, from now on Alaska would be receiving a rela- 
tively smaller revenue owing to the diversion of a larger part of the 
fish for other purposes than canning. 

Mr. Hardy. That is not taxed under the present law ? 

Dr. Smith. Not under the present law. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, is there any tax under the present law on the 
raw catch of the fisherman ? 

Dr. Smith. That is a new feature of the bill. 

Mr. Hardy. That is an additional tax, too? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. And, as I understand it, you tax the raw material 
when it is brought to the cannery ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. Whether by an employee of the cannery or somebody 
else? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. And then you tax the finished product when it is put 
out as canned goods ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 25 

Mr. Hardy. And then this bill proposes to tax other classes of 
fish that are sold besides the canned fish? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. The first and the last of these provisions will be in 
this law new provisions ? 

Dr. Smith. That is true, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. Is the license fee new ? 

Dr. Smith. The license fee is absolutely new. 

Mr. Hardy. Have you any idea as to what revenue will be derived 
from that license fee under this bill ? 

Dr. Smith. I have no figures at hand; I am willing to accept Mr. 
Wickersham's figures; he said $1,100 from fishery establishments. 

Mr. Hardy. That is, he was giving the number of establishments; 
but, as I understand it, even a private fisherman, if he wishes to catch 
fish for the purpose of selling them to those canneries, will have to 
take out a license ? 

Dr. Smith. This tax of apparatus is a new feature of Federal 
legislation. 

Mr. Hardy. What is that ? 

Dr. Smith. This taxation of apparatus is a new feature of Federal 
legislation; it is embodied in an Alaskan Territorial law. But I call 
your attention to the fact that there are some 300 pound nets in 
Alaska, and each of them will pay a tax of $50 per annum; and other 
fishing appliances in proportion. 

Mr. Hardy. They are taxed, as I understand, by Alaskan legisla- 
tion now, but not by Federal legislation ? 

Dr. Smith. That is true, sir. 

Mi". Curry. Do you think an Indian ought to pay a license tax to 
fish? 

Dr. Smith. If he is engaged in business in the same way that a 
white man is, it is perfectly proper to impose a tax on him. 

Mr. Curry. I do not agree with you; the Indian has special rights 
everywhere. 

Mr. Hadley. Well, if you impose a tax on anybody you must 
impose them on everybody. 

JJr. Smith. Yes, sir. You see only a nominal tax would be imposed. 
Suppose an Indian uses a set net, he pays a fee of $1 for a license. 
If the committee desires, however, we are willing to waive that 
altogether. We require him to pay on his catch, but also require 
him to be licensed. That is the main feature of this section, the 
control over the operations of the fishermen that is afforded by the 
insistence that they shall apply for and obtain a license before they 
shall carry on their business. 

The Chairman. The question of revenue is not in the thought of 
the bureau ? 

Dr. Smith. The question of revenue here was not considered, no, 
sir; it was purely regulation. 

Mr. Goodwin. I have not had time to read this bill; how is the 
tax, so much per pound ? 

The Chairman. That is provided in section 2, page 3. 

Dr. Smith. It is so much per thousand fish. 

The Chairman. Well, I suggest that we familiarize ourselves with 
the bill before we have a futher hearing. 



26 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Goodwin. When you say that the question of revenue was not 
in the mind of the bureau, I want to inquire whether the various rates 
were applied with a regard to the amount of revenue they would 
produce ? 

Dr. Smith. Not primarily. 

Mr. Goodwin. But you had regard in fixing the rates for the canned 
product and the other forms to which the rates would apply, to what 
the several articles ought reasonably to bear, did you not ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. Having regard to the expenses of production? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir; the proposed taxes are supposed to be com- 
mensurate with the value of the product and to conform with the 
practice of the various States having similar fisheries. 

Just a word or two more in this connection. There is provided an 
elaborate system of regulating fixed fishing apparatus, and of acquir- 
ing and retaining fishing sites. This is needed to prevent conflict, 
and to produce an orderly setting and operating of such apparatus; 
it is not intended to create any monopoly, but simply to do what the 
various States have found it desirable and necessary to do, especially 
in the matter of the setting of pound nets. 

The Chairman. You provide in the bill that each fisherman shall 
have certain grounds, the limits of which may be defined, do you not ? 

Dr. Smith. Each man who uses a fixed form of apparatus must get 
authority to use that apparatus in a given site, and use it in a proper 
way. 

The Chairman. Well, is that a right that continues indefinitely, or 
for a definite time ? 

Dr. Smith. The license for a fishing site is renewable from year to 
year, but preference is given to the man who is already there, and if he 
fails to use that site in a reasonable time, it is forfeited. 

Mr. Hadley. What is the time; three years, is it not ? 

Dr. Smith. Three years. If any operator shall fail to construct and 
operate his appliance in a bona fide manner for three consecutive 
years covered by the license, the location shall be deemed abandoned. 

The Chairman. Might not that right be abused ? For instance, 
might not a certain company, through individuals, get possession of 
these sites and withhold them from others for this term of three years ? 
In other words, one concern might, through Smith and Jones and 
Brown and others, select certain locations and procure licenses and 
remain there for three years and keep everybody else out ? 

Dr. Smith. That same practice is going on now. Fishermen are 
using the sites that they have acquired years ago. Those sites now 
are more or less legally recognized. The owners of the sites, or the 
holders of the sites, sometimes file with us a description thereof, or 
they may notify us that they are going to occupy certain sites in the 
following year. This provision of the bill is simply to regulate, to 
legalize, a long-established practice. 

Secretary Redfield. I do not think you understand the chair- 
man's question, Dr. Smith, it was whether, under this clause, " three 
consecutive years," as I understood — they might not use that to shut 
out somebody else for three years ? 

The Chairman. Yes; is there any reason why they should have 
this license unused for three years ? 

Dr. Smith. Do you think that three years is too long a time in 
which they should be allowed to hold the license without operating it ? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 27 

The Oil AIRMAN. Yes. 

Dr. Smith. Well, that is a matter for the committee to decide, in 
the light of the peculiar periodicity in the runs of salmon in Alaska. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chairman, I will introduce Mr. Warren, 
the commissioner of fisheries of the State of Oregon, who can speak of 
the practice and experience in that State with respect to this question. 

Mr. Warren. On Puget Sound and the Columbia River they have 
a requirement that four years may elapse without actual use and 
operation of a site. Of course, theoretically, that might be subject 
to abuse, but practically it is not. There are conditions surrounding 
the use of any particular site from year to year that must be taken 
into consideration ; for example, high winds, the shifting of the water, 
or periodical runs of fish, might prevent a man using his site each 
successive year. That is, the humpbacks would run biennially, that 
is, every second year, and it would not be just to require that a man 
who held a site on a particular territory should be required to operate 
that in the alternate year when the fish would not run there, or that 
he should lose possession of the site when he did not operate it, and 
some other man be allowed to step in there and get the site, simply 
and solely because the first man could not operate it during that 
time. Or, should the fish go there and the licensee should be unable 
to use the site for other physical reasons, he would not be required 
to give it up in favor of another man who would come in there another 
year. So, on the Puget Sound and Columbia River they have stipu- 
lated the time within which a man might hold his site before renewal 
of license, and within which he can not be put out for nonuse or the 
nonconstruction of his trap, as four years. In the present bill it pro- 
vides that the licensee may retain the site without operation for three 
years; in other words, he might not operate it for a period of two 
years, through unforeseen circumstances and yet not lose his right 
to it. It was for that purpose that the law was adopted in that form 
in the States of Oregon and Washington. 

Mr. Hardy. Is there not another consideration ? Of course, the 
only reason for following that kind of practice that the chairman was 
speaking about was to keep down the competitors' catch, and thereby 
holding up the market for your own product. 

Mr. Warren. No, sir. When you come into a location there are 
certain places where you can probably drive a trap. Under the 
law you go in and make application for that particular location, secure 
your license, and put in your trap. Now, that must be, under the 
terms of any law, within a ceratin number of feet of any other form 
of net or appartaus. When a man gets that he has to pay a license 
fee, and he has to construct the trap or renew his license, assuming 
that he gets it in good faith; if he does not construct it, and if he 
does not renew his license, he forfeits that right. But if, owing to 
physical conditions or other unforeseen circumstances, he could not 
do so, he would not lose it. 

Mr. Hardy. But what I mean is, under this provision is there any 
inducement for a man to procure a license and keep an idle place. 

Mr. Warren. That has never worked out that way; on Puget 
Sound or the Columbia River this practice prevails, and it has never 
worked out that way there. 

Mr. Hardy. You have never found a man paying a license fee 
to keep a place vacant and idle ? 



28 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Warren. We have never found that condition. 

Mr. Hardy. It occurs to me that there would be no profit in it. 

Mr. Warren. No; if a site is not worth fishing it is not worth 
paying a license fee for. 

Mr. Hardy. And if a man pays a license fee it is to his interest 
to operate it, is it ? 

Mr. Warren. It is to his interest to operate it. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Dr. Smith. 

Dr. Smith. Other new features of the bul are that greater restric- 
tions are thrown about the use of fishing apparatus, looking to the 
perpetuation of the supply, particularly of salmon. The spaces 
between the fixed nets are increased; the size of nets is restricted, 
and the fishing is regulated in various other ways. Restrictions are 
imposed that are not in the existing law. 

Mr. Hadley. What are the limits as to the distance between 
pound nets under the new bill ? 

Dr. Smith. That is in section 7, page 9; the lateral distance is 2,400 
feet. 

Mr. Hadley. Six hundred feet end and 2,400 feet lateral passage- 
way ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. The present law is 1 ,800 feet. 

Another feature of the bill is that the provisions of existing law 
regarding the wanton or willful waste oi food fish are extended and 
clarified, and the manufacture of food fish into oil and fertilizer is 
prohibited after a term of years. For many years there has been in 
Alaska a plant at which herring have been converted into oil and 
guano. We are satisfied that this should be discontinued, because a 
demand for herring as food has sprung up ; and a very much greater 
demand can be created, because there is no reason in the world why 
the Alaska herring should not compete with the best herring from 
other countries, like Norway and Scotland. 

Mr. Hardy. Do you think the use of them for oil and fertilizer is 
destroying the supply ? 

Dr. Smith. I would not say that there is any permanent diminution 
in the supply of herring up to this time ; but enormous quantities are 
being taken when there is a demand for such fish in other forms. 

Mr. Hardy. Unless the use for these purposes injuriously affects 
the fishery there would be no reason for prohibiting the use of them 
for anything, would there? We should leave that to the man 
catching them, should we not ? 

Dr. Smith. There is very considerable opposition to this method 
of utilizing a valuable food fish among the people of Alaska. W e 
have received numerous complaints, and petitions have been sent in 
to this committee and to the department praying that this practice 
be discontinued. 

Secretary Redfield. Is it not the fact, Dr. Smith, that one concern 
used 60,000 barrels of herring in one year? 

Dr. Smith. Yes; 60,000 barrels of food fish were converted into 
oil and guano. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, now, if the taking of that 60,000 barrels did not 
permanently destroy the supply of fish, and the men who took them 
found that they could get more money out of them in that way than 
in any other — unless it is destructive to the fishing industry up there 
and to the permanent supply of fish — why should we interfere? If 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 29 

you have any commodity, you would sell it for food or for any other 
purpose, according to the price that you could get for it. It just 
occurs to me that, unless there is some permanent injury to the 
fishery, when a man caught the fish what he would do with them 
would be a question of what was the most profitable use to him. 

Dr. Smith. Then he would also be permitted to catch salmon and 
convert them into oil and fertilizer. 

Mr. Hardy. If the oil and fertilizer would bring more than the 
use as food, I would use it if it was mine; you would if it was yours. 
If you had a horse you would ride him if he was worth more to you 
used in that way than if he was used for meat; you would not kill 
him for meat if he was worth more to you for riding purposes. 

Dr. Smith. In that case, it would be the man's own horse; but in 
the case of these fish it is public property in which all the citizens of 
the United States have an interest. 

Mr. Curry. It is not public property after it is caught. 

Dr. Smith. There is, of course, something to be said on both sides 
of this fish-fertilizer question. 

Mr. Hardy. We used cotton seed as food ; but it is also valuable as 
a fertilizer. I would say that if a man had a fine lot of cotton seed 
that he wanted to use for fertilizer, another man could not tell him 
that he must use it for food. But it is a different question, of course, 
if the fish are used in such quantities as to endanger the source of 
supply. 

Secretary Kedfield. We have been informed that a million cans 
of this same herring have been put up — have been taken and used for 
oil — and there is no question in our minds that the fishery can not 
stand both uses; we have got to choose between their use as food 
and as fertilizer. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, whichever has the highest ralue is the one that 
ought to get the fish; it will get it unless we interfere. 

Secretary Redfield. That, as a business proposition, is all right 
for the man that runs the business; but as a public proposition, I 
should say that it ought to be considered that the low price of food 
is a more important thing than the low price of oil. 

Mr. Hardy. The only way you can justify that is to say that the 
use of it for those purposes is going to destroy the source of supply, 
because as long as the source is not destroyed a man can simply get 
more 

Secretary Redfield (interposing). Well, it would diminish the sup- 
ply of food. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, as I understand, you are not diminishing the sup- 
ply of food. 

Dr. Smith. Up to this time there has been no noteworthy diminu- 
tion that could be regarded as permanent. 

Mr. Hardy. If you had a product of any kind, would you be willing 
for the United States to interfere with the disposition of that product ? 

Dr. Smith. There is hardly a State in the Union that has not a simi- 
lar provision of law. 

The Chairman. It seems to me that we are not talking about what 
belongs to an individual, but what belongs to the people as a whole. 
If you raise corn, you can use it for the purpose of burning it if j^ou 
want to do so. But these fish belong to the public; and if it is more 



80 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

important to the public to use them as a food supply the Government 
can determine that as a matter of policy. 

Secretary Redfield. May I interrupt you just a moment, Mr. 
Chairman, to introduce Mr. Strong, of Ketchikan, who can explain 
very briefly how this is affecting the fishery industry % 

The Chairman. Yes; certainly. 

Mr. Strong. During the last year or two it has had a serious 
effect. The fertilizer plants take the fish when they can get them 
in quantities. They take them in boat and carloads to their plants, 
and they use them up rapidly. There is a demand for herring there 
during the whole year as bait for the halibut fleet, and it is necessary 
to have a supply throughout the year. But if we permit the ferti- 
lizer plants to go in and destroy the schools, to make a clean sweep 
of them, why there is nothing there. 

Mr. Hardy. Then, it does injure the source of your supply ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes; otherwise the schools would be there. They 
would stay for perhaps two or three months, and the halibut fleet 
would be able to draw the fish from that source as the required bait; 
but the fertilizer plants are able to go in and deplete that whole 
supply within a very few days, clean the whole thing out completely. 
Thus, it is a great injury to other branches of the business which 
would produce more wealth to the country. 

Mr. Hardy. After all, then, that part of the law is intended to 
prevent the destruction of the source of supply % 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. 

Mr. Strong. I suppose so. I have never seen the bill. 

Secretary Redfield. Mr. Strong is not interested in the bill at all. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, if it destroys the source of supply, it should be 
prevented. But if the only object is to prevent them from being 
used as fertilizer or oil when that use does not interfere with the 
supply that is a different thing. 

Mr. Hadley. As a matter of fact, that is the purpose of all these 
restrictions, is it not ? 

Secretary Redfield. Yes; that is the purpose of all these restric- 
tions. 

Dr. Smith. This business can undoubtedly interfere temporarily 
with the supply and also permanently injure these fisheries. These 
plants went in there at a time when there was no demand for herring 
as food fish. They are entitled to a reasonable time in which to get 
out, as I hope they may be willing to do. I think we can show them 
that it is much more profitable to put up Alaska herring at $10 a 
barrel, in a salted condition, than it is to convert them into oil and 
fertilizer. 

Mr. Hardy. I think you will find that after a man has caught his 
fish, if he catches them, he is going to get as much money as he can, 
without being forced to it. 

Mr. Bower. The halibut fishery is dependent almost wholly on the 
herring fishery; the two are closely related ; and if the herring fishery 
is depleted the halibut fishery will be bound to suffer. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, for that reason you would be justified in limiting 
the catch of the herring under any circumstances and for any purposes. 

Dr. Smith. The halibut fishing industry is now somewhat in- 
jured 

Mr. Curry (interposing). There are more halibut now than there 
€ver were in Alaska. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 31 

Dr. Smith. Some of the grounds have been depleted, just as they 
have in other parts of the world, but there are doubtless great reserves 
of halibut there yet. 

Mr. Curry. More than in all the rest of the world put together, I 
think. 

Dr. Smith. The catch of halibut on the Pacific coast is ten times 
greater than on the Atlantic coast. 

Another new feature of the bill is that it takes time by the forelock, 
and seeks to prevent damage to the fishing industry by pollution of 
the waters by industrial waste, prohibits the use of poisons and 
explosives for catching fish ; and requires that dams shall be equipped 
with fishways. 

Mr. Curry. What page is that ? 

Secretary Redfield. Sections 14 and 15. I will say, Mr. Chair- 
man, that the experience of the State of Maine, as Mr. Hinds, I am 
sure, will tell you, has been one that is very sad. You may read 
"Kennebec salmon" on your restaurant bills of fare: but you will 
never get them; the sawdust in the lumber mills and the dams 
killed them long ago. The State of Maine, which once had mag- 
nificent salmon fisheries, has had them disappear almost wholly, or 
very largely, by the very things that this bill prohibits. 

Dr. Smith. And then, finally, among the major new features of 
this bill, is the discontinuance of private hatcheries and of the tax 
rebate system that is dependent thereon. The present system has 
been very much criticized in and out of Alaska, and to our minds the 
situation is decidedly anomalous. The present conditions certainly 
warrant a change in the law. Under the old law the Secretary of 
the Treasury had the authority to require that all persons engaged 
in catching salmon in Alaska should hatch and release salmon fry in 
numbers proportionate to the extent of the fishing operations. It is 
obviously impracticable to carry out any such regulation. As a 
matter of fact, I believe only nine private hatcheries were ever estab- 
lished, and at present only five are in existence. 

Mr. Hadley. This bill proposes to take those over, does it ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. The law of 1906 exempted from taxation the 
cannery output of the owners of private hatcheries at the rate of 
10 cases of canned salmon for every 1,000 red or king salmon fry 
liberated. 

Mr. Curry. Do you not think it would be a good idea for the 
Government to take those private hatcheries over now ? 

Dr. Smith. That is provided for in the bill. 

Mr. Curry. I did not notice that. 

Secretary Redfield. It is in section 17. 

Mr. Curry. That authorized the department to buy some of the 
hatcheries ? 

Mr. Hadley. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to acquire by 
purchase or condemnation any and all private salmon hatcheries. 

Mr. Curry. You have also public hatcheries up there, have you 
not — Government hatcheries ? 

Dr. Smith. Two Federal hatcheries. 

Mr. Curry. The Government has two hatcheries up there. I 
believe that the canneries would be pleased to turn their hatcheries 
over to you without compensation or condemnation proceedings. 



32 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Britton. Speaking for the Alaska Packers' Association, they 
have taken the position that they would prefer to operate hatcheries; 
but if the' United States deems it advisable that the Federal Govern- 
ment should control all their hatcheries, they are perfectly willing to 
surrender their hatcheries to the United States. But they, of course, 
think that they should be properly compensated for the value of the 
hatcheries that they are surrendering. We agreed to the provision 
that is inserted in this bill that they should be taken over by the 
United States upon a fair valuation, either by direct purchase or 
through condemnation, as the United States prefers. That refers to 
the two hatcheries that are owned by the Alaska Packers' Association. 

Mr. Curry. I believe it costs the packers a good deal more to run 
their hatcheries than any rebate they get from the Government. 

Mr. Britton. It costs them about 42 cents per thousand, whereas 
they get 40; it is expensive for them to run the hatcheries. 

Dr. Smith. It is my judgment that the owners of private hatch- 
eries in Alaska have not received any noteworthy pecuniary benefit 
or profit from the provisions of existing law. Our own experience 
in operating hatcheries in Alaska is that 40 cents per thousand fry 
liberated is a very low charge. As a matter of fact, on the island of 
Afognak, where we have a hatchery which has had some vicissitudes 
in recent years on account of volcanic eruption, we have paid several 
dollars to plant a thousand young salmon. 

Mr. Hadley. All these existing private hatcheries that might be 
taken over are essential, are they, to the propagation of the industry ? 

Dr. Smith. I would not say that; we would like to have the 
privilege of continuing those which we think are most effective. 

Mr. Hadley. Where are the two Government hatcheries ? 

Dr. Smith. One is on Yes Bay, not far from Ketchikan, and the 
other on the island of Afognak, which is a game and fish reservation. 

Mr. Curry. If you took any over and paid for them, do you not 
think that you ought to take them all over ? 

Dr. Smith. Undoubtedly we would have to take them all over if 
we took any over — at a fair valuation. 

Mr. Hardy. How were those hatcheries established; under what 
foundation of law, and for whose benefit? 

Secretary Redfield. I can put this in the record, if you care for 
me to do so. Here is the original circular quoting the law, and on 
the back the regulations which apply. 

Mr. Hardy. I would like to have just a brief explanation of how 
and why they were established; who found it to their interest to 
establish them; what was the cost of the establishment, and what 
were the profits of the operation. 

Dr. Smith. At a time when the fisheries of Alaska were under the 
Treasury Department, the Secretary of the Treasury, under authority 
of law, issued regulations, and a provision of one of the regulations 
was that any person who was engaged in capturing salmon in Alaska 
should establish a private hatchery and plant fry in proportion to 
the magnitude of his operations. 

Mr. Hardy. In other words, the purpose of it was to restock the 
salmon; when the supply was depleted to make him build it back? 

Dr. Smith. That was the idea; to make him compensate — — 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). For what he got? 

Dr. Smith. For what he destroyed. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 33 

Mr. Hardy. IS ow, you say under that law only nine people estab- 
lished such hatcheries, and only five of them still exist? 

Dr. Smith. That is all, because under this regulation you can see 
how obviously impracticable it was to have hatcheries established by 
everybody wno was engaged in fishing in Alaska. For instance, the 
regulation says that each person "shall establish and conduct a 
hatchery at or near the fisheries operated by him." Well, salmon 
require very peculiar conditions in which to spawn; and a man may 
be conducting a fishery for salmon in Alaska where there will be no 
suitable hatching facilities within hundreds of miles. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, the result of this feature of the bill would be to 
relieve the catchers of that obligation of the present law, and to 
t ike that burden on the Government itself ? 

Dr. Smith. That obligation now rests on only five 

Mr. Hardy. At least, only five were carrying it out. 

Mr. Curry. Well, it costs them more than they receive from the 
Government. 

Dr. Smith. I have seen figures which indicate that for a certain 
year, or for a series of years, one private hatchery expended 42 cents 
per thousand fry liberated; another one 38 cents. 

Mr. Curry. And they received a rebate of 

Dr. Smith. They receive a rebate of 40 cents. 

Mr. Hadley. Oi 'course, involved in that there is a question of 
policy on the part of the Government, and that is, if it is going to 
conduct the hatcheries, would an ultimate increase in the industry 
result from the maintenance of these hatcheries? That is a vital 
element, and it goes beyond the mere question of receipts and 
expenses. 

Secretary Redfield. That is the large question. 

Mr. Hadley. That is the large question; and while the private 
owner may only receive that temporary gain or loss, he may have 
received definite advantage in the course of years in the catch and 
the permanence of the industry; and so it would be for the Govern- 
ment to say what would be best as a large question of policy. 

Secretary Redfield. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy. From what you say, Dr. Smith, I imagine that these 
private plants would not have been maintained by the present owners 
for the profit in them ? 

Dr. Smith. No, sir. As a matter of fact, the largest hatchery in 
Alaska was established before the requirement of law; it was put in 
there voluntarily, because it was thought by the owners that it would 
help their fishery. 

The principal objection to private hatcheries that I entertain is 
that Congress makes no adequate provision for their inspection; and 
that we can not, or do not, have at each hatchery at certain critical 
times a qualified inspector whose report would be needed in order that 
we might determine the efficiency of the hatchery and check up with 
the superintendent the number of fish reported to be liberated. 

Mr. Hardy. That simply amounts to the fact that you can not 
know about it; they can not do any harm, these hatcheries? 

Dr. Smith. They can not do any harm; they are certainly doing 
good. 

Mr. Hardy. But you do not know how much ? 

46232—16—3 



34 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Dr. Smith. But we are required to certify to their efficiency, and 
that is impossible with the present force and facilities. 

Mr. Curry. Well, it is to their interest to run a proper hatchery, 
is it not ? 

Dr. Smith. Decidedly so. 

There is one other matter, and only one, to which I would call your 
particular attention in this connection, and that is that a man may 
comply with the law in all its -details, planting his salmon as fry, and 
yet, in my judgment, he would not be conducting an efficient hatchery. 
I do not believe any hatchery that simply turns out fry can be 
efficient. In fact, in these times a hatchery is efficient in proportion 
to the number of fry it does not turn out; that is, its efficiency is in 
proportion to the number of fish that it carries beyond the fry stage. 
All of our recent improvement in salmon hatching in the Pacific 
States and in Alaska has been in rearing them beyond the fry stage. 
Mr. Hardy. What do you mean by the "fry stage" ? 
Dr. Smith. The fry stage is while the fish still carry a heavy 
yolk-sac on their abdomen. They are practically helpless at that 
stage. They carry this for a number of weeks, and during that 
time do not eat; they have no functional mouth. The sac is gradu- 
ally absorbed and then the fish begin to swim, and when the yolk is 
absorbed and disappears they cease to be fry. No fish should be 
planted in that state if it can be avoided; but a hatchery. can strictly 
comply with the law and yet be conducting a hatchery that can not 
by any possibility be considered efficient in the light of our present 
knowledge and experience. 

Mr. Hardy. In other words, you think that the hatchery ought to 
take the fish beyond the stage required by the present law and then 
turn them out ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes; we are carrying 30,000,000 salmon this year beyond 
the fry stage, up to the fingerling stage. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, when they are turned out in the fry stage, do 
you just take them out of your hatchery and let them go into the 
waters ? 

Dr. Smith. Such fish are planted on the spawning grounds, where 
there is a host of enemies and where a tremendous mortality neces- 
sarily ensues. 

Mr. Curry. That is not done any more? 
Dr. Smith. The law permits it to be done. 

Mr. Curry. The law permits it to be done, but they would be 
wery foolish to do it. 

Secretary Redfield. Very foolish. The sundry civil appropri- 
ation bill this year carries an appropriation for a lobster rearing 
plant, so that in that particular industry they can be carried until 
they are old enough to take care of themselves. 

Mr. Hadley. At the end of last year had the output shown a 
tendency to decrease or to increase — the quantity of fish caught ? 
Dr. Smith. In Alaska? 
Mr. Hadley. Yes. 

Dr. Smith. The catch in 1915 was the largest on record, and the 
catch in 1914 was also a record one. 

Mr. Curry. There are some matters here in reference to the 
whaling industry. I would like to know how you intend to handle 
the whaling industry up there? There was a bill introduced in 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 35 

Congress at the last session and referred to this committee under 
which whaling plants were not to be permitted within 75 miles of 
each other. 

Dr. Smith. That is following the Canadian practice. 

Mr. Curry. And in Alaska there is a certain Minnesota corporation 
that has all those points now. Would this bill give them a monopoly 
of the whaling industry? 

Dr. Smith. The whaling industry was intended to be covered by 
section 18 of this bill. We are not prepared at this time, unless the 
committee so insists, to recommend any detailed regulations for the 
whale fishery, or the walrus fishery, or the hair seal fishery, or various 
other minor fisheries. We have not had enough experience, for one 
thing, to determine all that those industries need in the way of pro- 
tective legislation. 

Mr. Curry. Well, there is a corporation that is organized and prac- 
tically has control of those shore plants. There are other whalers 
up there at the present time ? 

Mr. Bower. There are only two whaling stations in Alaska at the 
present time, and they are about 1,500 miles apart, I believe, along the 
coast line. Other than that, the whaling industry in Alaska is prac- 
tically nil; the offshore whale fishery has practically ceased to exist. 

Dr. Smith. The only way to save the whale fishery is by some 
international agreement covering the killing of whales on the high 
seas, in the north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and the Arctic Ocean. 

Mr. Curry. Well, you might have that international agreement; 
I hope you will come to an agreement with Japan and Russia. I do 
not know whether Japan would keep her end of the agreement or not; 
she might if she wanted to. 

Dr. Smith. It will be a very difficult thing to regulate. The pro- 
tection of whales is something that has not heretofore been thought 
feasible. 

Mr. Curry. But you have it in the bill. 

Mr. Hardy. What section did you say it was? 

Dr. Smith. Section 18. If it is the sense of the committee that 
there should be some specific provisions for covering the whale 
fishery, we will be glad to give the matter thought, and will report 
something for your consideration. 

Mr. Hadley. You say it is the present judgment of your bureau 
that you could not well attempt to regulate the whaling business ? 

Dr. Smith. The shore whaling industry of Alaska as now conducted 
will, I think, lead to a very great diminution in the number of whales 
that resort to these shore waters. They are for the most part not 
the kinds of whales that used to be caught on the high seas, and are 
now approaching extinction. 

Mr. Hardy. I do not exactly understand how the whale comes in 
section 18; I do not see it spoken of in there by name. 

Mr. Bower. Yes; as an aquatic animal. 

Mr. Curry. The whale is also spoken of by name in section 2. 

Secretary Redfield. The whale lives in the water, but he is not 
a fish. 

The Chairman. Are you through, Dr. Smith? Has any one any 
questions to ask Dr. Smith? Of course, after we become familiar 
with the text of this bill, we will very likely want to call you back. 



36 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Are there any other gentlemen here from the Pacific coast who 
desire to be heard to-day? 

Mr. Curry. Before Dr. Smith gets through, I would like to have 
him make some suggestions to the committee in reference to this 
whaling proposition, as he has it in the bill. I do not think that 
department should be given the power to permit a monopoly of that 
industry. Of course, we want to see the whales protected. 

Dr. Smith. There is no law or regulation whatever for the killing 
of whales in Alaska now. 

Mr. Curry. Of course, this act is not to be carried out by any one 
individual, but by a public office which might be filled by all kinds of 
men, some of whom might be in favor of creating a monopoly. I 
think we ought to look over that very carefully. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER BRITTON, ATTORNEY AT 
LAW, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the fishing industry 
in various years have appeared before different committees of Con- 
gress in the effort to assist them in shaping up legislation that would 
be satisfactory. 

At the last session, when Dr. Jones went to Alaska to investigate 
conditions and returned, we were invited by the Department of Com- 
merce to come in and see if we could not agree on some sort of legis- 
lation, and a great deal of time and labor was spent on the preparation 
of this bill, which is fairly satisfactory to the people interested in the 
business, and I do not think that we ought to take up the time of 
your committee in going into the details of that bill, any more than 
the committee wants it as a matter of information to the committee. 
We are here to give any information that the committee may want, 
in the way of explanation or otherwise. 

The Chairman. When you say "we," to whom do you refer? 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Warren, who is here, and Capt. Reynolds, and 
myself. 

The Chairman. And you represent what interest? 

Mr. Britton. I represent the Alaska Packers' Association. Mr. 
Warren represents his own independent interests, and both of them 
represent the Pacific Fisheries Association; that is an association of 
independent salmon packers. 

The Chairman. Well, do you desire to make a statement? 

Mr. Britton. We are here at your request. 

Mr. Warren. Mr. Chairman, if the committee would like to 
familiarize themselves more thoroughly with the provisions of the 
bill, we would be glad to come here later. 

The Chairman. Yes; Our next hearing day is next Thursday, and 
Dr. Jones will be here then. 

Secretary Redfield. I would like to have Dr. Bower, who has 
the whole of the details in his mind, also make a statement at that 
time. 

The Chairman. Yes; and in the meantime we can familiarize 
ourselves with this bill. 

Mr. Hadley. Probably we could ask these gentlemen questions 
better after we have familiarized ourselves with the text. I am not 
very familiar myself with it, except that I saw at a glance that all the 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 37 

practical features are based on the statute of Washington, and I am 
very familiar with that; but I am not familiar with the bill aside 
from that. 

Mr. Wickersham. I would like to ask Mr. Britton if he represents 
the Booth fisheries also ? 

Mr. Britton. Judge Wickersham asks me that question every 
time I get on my feet. 

The Chairman. It is the first time he has asked it in this com- 
mittee. 

Mi\ Britton.- As before, I state that I do not. 

Mr. Wickersham. Since that time, you have said something about 
being employed by them ; and I was just wondering if that had been 
consummated. 

Mr. Britton. I do not, Judge Wickersham. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further, we will adjourn until 
Thursday of next week. 

(Thereupon, at 5.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 
Thursday, June 1, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



ALASKA IFISIHIIEIRIES 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE ON THE 
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 
First Session 

on 



H. R. 9528 



A BILL FOR THE PROTECTION, REGULATION, AND CON- 
SERVATION OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA 



PART 2 



JUNE 1, 1916 






WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFTIOE 

1916 



COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES. 

House of Repkesentatives. 



JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. 



RUFUS HARDY, Texas. 
MICHAEL E. BURKE, Wisconsin. 
EDWARD W. SAUNDERS, Virginia. 
PETER J. DOOLING, New York. 
HENRY BRUCKNER, New York. 
LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. 
JAMES P. BYRNES, South Carolina. 
JESSE D. PRICE, Maryland. 
CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. 



OSCAR L. GRAY, Alabama. 
DAVID H. KINCHELOE, Kentucky. 
WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. 
ASHER C. HINDS, Maine. 
CHARLES P. CURRY, California. 
GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania. 
WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, Illinois. 
GEORGE A. LOUD, Michigan. 
LINDLEY H. HADLEY, Washington. 
FREDERICK W. ROWE, New York. 



J. C. Bat, Clerk. 



II 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. 6 7 ., June 1, 1916. 
The committee met at 10.20 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joshua W. Alex- 
ander (chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF MR. E. LESTER JONES, SUPERINTENDENT COAST 
AND GEODETIC SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how much detail you 
would like to have in the general trend of what I shall have to say. 

My trip to Alaska was in 1914, and primarily to see at first hand 
the conditions of the great salmon industry and, incidentally, to in- 
spect and lock over anything over which the Bureau of Fisheries has 
jurisdiction, and other matters. I left here in May, 1911, and re- 
turned to Washington in November, stopping en route. I spent 
something in the neighborhood of five months in Alaska, having 
every facility furnished entirely by the Government for seeing these 
conditions at first hand. My trip started at the international boun- 
dary line and extended west to the Aleutian Islands and north to 
the Pribilof Islands, and I visited every section where they take 
salmon in any quantity, except Bristol Bay, and, owing to the condi- 
tions which arose on the Pribilof Islands which necessitated my 
going there immediately, I was deprived from seeing that section. 
However, I did not think that was of great importance — losing that 
opportunity — as I visited about 50 canneries and salteries during 
my trip. 

The Chairman. Indicate what points you did visit and where 
ihose canneries and salteries are located. 

Mr. Jones. Here is the international boundary line right here. I 
spent about two months in southeastern Alaska among those 2,000 
islands and I touched at one or more localities on nearly all the large 
islands and went to many of the important canneries. I not only 
visited the canneries but I went out on the fishing grounds and 
studied the various methods of taking the salmon by traps, purse 
seines, gill nets, spearing, or gaffing for the Chinook or king salmon, 
etc. Then I went up into the streams and noted the conditions there 
at the time of spawning. The salmon were spawning part of the 
time I was in southeastern Alaska. I was very careful to weigh both 
sides of all questions and I did not use one observation as final, and 
waited to see a great many ; and what I have to say and have said in 
my report is not based on hearsay but from personal contact. I also 

39 



40 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

laid special stress upon observing the methods in which the salmon 
were canned. 

I went to the whaling station at Port Armstrong, southeastern 
Alaska, and Akutaw, western Alaska, and watched those operations 
with a great deal of care. 

The Chairman. Where is the first station located? 

Mr. Jones. Eight here, southwestern corner of Baranof Island. 
I went to the only fertilizer factory in Alaska, at Killisnoo, on the 
western shore, in a little bay on Admiralty Island. I was very 
anxious to see that, as there had been a great deal of controversy over 
it, as some of you gentlemen know, during past years as to whether 
it Avas wisdom to permit its continuation. 

From southeastern Alaska I went to Yakutat, where they are catch- 
ing so many salmon in Sietuk River, etc. From there I went to 
Prince William Sound where Cordova and Valdez are located, from 
the latter place is the beginning of the wagon road to Fairbanks. 
And I went up the Copper River twice, especially to observe how 
the salmon were running up that stream and also to note the method 
used for taking the salmon by dip net. Due to the very rapid water, 
the salmon work over to the shore, and the fishermen dip them out 
by hand nets. 

I brought this map with me because it has the locations of the can- 
neries indicated on it and therefore easier to refer to. These black 
dots are the canneries, and you see how they are distributed in south- 
east Alaska. Note one at Yakutat, and there are a few scattered in 
the central part of Alaska. Note Cook inlet, where there are several. 
Where you see the solid black squares instead of the circle, they 
represent salteries. This symbol (hollow circle) represents the fer- 
tilizer factory at Killisnoo. 

I might add right here that I went to the hatcheries; not only 
Government hatcheries at Yes Bay, but also those hatcheries owned 
by private concerns. 

Mr. Rodenberg. What cannery is that right above Killisnoo? 
Thre is one somewhere near there, isn't there ? 

Mr. Jones. Right here, sir [indicating on map] ? 

Mr. RoDENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. Jones. That is the Admiralty Trading Co. on the eastern 
shore of the island. Here is one farther north, in the northern part 
of the island. 

From Cook Inlet I went westward after receiving a radio to pro- 
ceed to the Pribilof Islands from the Secretary of Commerce, and 
when I finish my work on these islands I resumed my investigations, 
laying special stress on the fisheries. Visited principal points on the 
Aleutian Islands. Sannak Islands, stopped at the Shumagins where 
the great codfish industry is being carried on. Then from there to 
the Semidi Islands, also stopping on the Alaskan Peninsula, where 
there was something of interest in connection with my duties. Then 
from there I went to Kodiak Island, where there are a number of can- 
neries, the largest of which is at Uyak. Visited the Karluk Hatch- 
ery, owned by a private company. Then on Afognak Island, where 
the Federal Government operates a hatchery. 

I finished my trip in southeastern Alaska, where I could see some 
conditions that did not exist when I left two or three months previous 
to my return. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 41 

I do not know exactly what line you would like me to speak on, 
unless I go into a great many details, but I will go just as far as you 
wish, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Of course, what we want to know is the necessity, 
in the first place, for this legislation. If there are any conditions 
there that need correction, wiry, indicate them. 

Mr. Jones. In the first place, I wish to say that I found the Federal 
officials, who are widely scattered on account of the vast territory they 
have to cover, doing excellent work and performing their duties very 
well under the hardest kind of conditions. 

The Chairman. What is the extent of the territory covered there? 

Mr. Jones. The coast line of Alaska from the international bound- 
ary line up and including the Arctic is 26,000 miles. 

The Chairman. Just up as far as the map indicates the fisheries 
are located ? 

Mr. Jones. Up here. I should' say, taking in the general trend 
and all around the islands, there are perhaps eighteen or twenty thou- 
sand miles. I have not measured it, but I should say approximately 
that much coast line. 

The greatest drawback 

Mr. Hadley. What is the sailing distance from southeastern 
Alaska out to Bristol Bay and the Pribilof Islands? 

Mr. Jones. You mean direct? 

Mr. Hadley. Yes; the usual course. 

Mr. Jones. About 1400 miles, Cross Sound to Bristol Bay. 

Mr. Hadley. I asked that on account of the effect on administra- 
tion. 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. I found the greatest drawback not only in 
the further protection of the great salmon industry but also in en- 
forcing the law where it was needed, was due almost solely to the 
fact that there has not been the money provided for vessels and 
wardens or inspectors, or whatever you wish to call them. To give 
an example, in southeastern Alaska, which is an immense territory 
by itself, the fisheries had only one small boat to cover that territory. 
The boat was not only unable to cover the area but was very slow, 
and everyone of the modern fishing boats there could distance the 
Government boat without any trouble. This is the primary reason 
for any lack of enforcement of the law. I did not find there was any 
lack of enthusiasm among our men ; they simply were helpless. 

Another point. They were continually calling on privately owned 
vessels to take them around. The Government officials are so iso- 
lated, especially in central and western Alaska, that the only way 
they could move about was to go to the cannery superintendents and 
ask them to take them to such and such a point. 

The Chairman. To inspect their canneries? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; and if there was a violation, going there for 
the purpose of arresting them. Perhaps you can realize the em- 
barrassing position it places one of the officials in. He is handi- 
capped at the start, dependent on them both as to moving about as 
well as for his food. This point I would like to emphasize more than 
any other, because people who have not been there and realized the 
isolation, can hardly appreciate the fact that there should be modern 
boats and more wardens for patrolling the waters, especially of cen- 
tral and western Alaska. 



42 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Curry. How are the canneries being conducted? Are there 
many deliberate violations of the law ? 

Mr. Jones. The canneries generally surprised me in respect to ob- 
serving the law. I found them generally in splendid condition and 
packing their fish well. There were exceptions; but, as a rule, the 
well-organized canneries are quite as particular as any first-class 
manufacturer would be in the States. 

Mr. Curry. Now, if they are being conducted in that manner, why 
should there be such a great increase in the inspection force ? 

Mr. Jones. I will tell you. I said there were some exceptions, Mr. 
Curry, and those very exceptions should be looked after. 

Mr. Curry. Would it take any more people to look after them 
than you have now, if you had boats ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes; because some of the officers never get to the can- 
neries. I think the boats are the principal thing needed and money 
to operate them; they can not get anywhere until they have the 
boats. I think adding to the force is a secondary consideration. 
More wardens are needed as some of them should be permanently 
located at some of these central and western points, but there is no 
use putting the wardens there unless they have some up to date ves- 
sels to carry them about during the salmon season, or any other 
fishing season. 

Mr. Hardy. How much show or opportunity would there be to 
catch one of these canneries in a violation of the law, if you have first 
to get his boat to take you up there to look into it ? 

Mr. Jones. There is none at all. Under the present conditions it 
is considered a joke in many localities on account of the manner in 
which Government officials try to enforce the law. When the men 
on the fishing ground are often warned in advance. 

Mr. Hardy. It is bound to be a joke, when you depend on them to 
carry you there, is it not? 

Mr. Jones. It certainly is. But I do not want to convey the im- 
pression there is a wholesale violation of law in Alaska; the viola- 
tions are in the minority. But if the laws are going to be properly 
enforced, then my contention is that those people should be held to 
strict account for violating the law. I found that generally the 
superintendents were in favor of observing the law, and they seek 
the fullest investigation of their canneries. 

Mr. Hardy. The point I am making is that if there were a great 
number of violations, you could never find it out by the means you 
have at your hands. 

Mr. Jones. Absolutely not, sir. 

Mr. Curry. How could the canners notify the people that you 
were coming to investigate them. Are there any telephones from one 
cannery to another ? 

Mr. Jones. No, sir. I will cite you one instance : A warden of the 
fisheries was about to leave a point on one of the connery's tugs and 
when the tug was several miles from the fishing ground the captain 
blew several blasts. The warden said, " What is that for ?" " Why," 
he said, " that is my signal to notify the foreman of the fishing gang 
when a warden is on one of our tugs so as to give him plenty of warn- 
ing in case he is violating any law." 

Mr. Curry. That would not be much notice, would it ? 

Mr. Jones. Four or five miles. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 43 

Mr. Curry. How long would it take you to go that far I 

Mr. Jones. Well, I was just speaking in 

Mr. Kodenberu. I suppose the tug would slow up a little bit about 
that time, too? 

Mr. Jones. I was not giving the literal distance. 

Mr. Curry. Suppose it was 10 miles, it would not give them a 
chance to clean up the cannery, would it? 

Mr. Jones. It was not the cannery I was referring to; it was 
fishing in places where they had no business. 

Mr. Curry. Of the violations of law you found up there, what is 
the percentage and what is the character of the violations? 

Mr. Jones. To answer the first question, I should say in canneries 
the violation of the sanitary law — if we haven't one on the statute 
books we certainly have a moral one — is about 5 per cent ; I should say 
the number violating by improper fishing was 25 per cent. 

Mr. Curry. How are they violating the sanitary law ? 

Mr. Jones. By packing fish that were unfit to go in the cans. 

The Chairman. Stale fish? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. And I will reiterate what I have said, that 
with the well-organized companies I don't remember finding a can- 
nery that was not reasonably clean. It was just several small can- 
neries, and the sooner these or others doing likewise are wiped out of 
existence the better, because it struck me that those which were not 
able to be conducted properly were taking and putting into cans most 
any kind of salmon they could get hold of. 

Mr. Curry. Do you think that the small canneries ought to be put 
out of existence ? 

Mr. Jones. I think so if they can not conduct them properly, or 
any others for that matter. I found the canneries that were violating 
the law by putting bad fish into cans for food purposes were the 
small canneries. I did not find a large cannery violating the law in 
that way. 

Mr. Curry. If you had a boat or a number of boats of your own, 
couldn't you inspect those small canneries a little more frequently, 
possibly ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes. sir. Under the present conditions, I was referring 
to. If those canneries could be inspected at times by Government 
vessels, not knowing the time they would appear. I am sure conditions 
cvould be helped. I went there under unusually favorable conditions ; 
no one know where I was most of the time, and I believe I saw a fairly 
good average of what canneries are doing all the time. 

Mr. Curry. Of course, a Government inspector can inspect any- 
thing out of existence, if he wants to. 

Mr. Jones. I beg pal-don, sir ? 

Mr. Curry. I say, of course, a Government inspector can inspect 
anything out of existence if he wants to. The Government inspectors 
of the United States have inspected all of the small slaughterhouses 
out of existence, and by combinations these big slaughterhouses have 
centralized the business and instead of reducing the cost of beef they 
have increased it. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Curry, I positively did not mean to convey to this 
committee or to anyone else that I was in favor of the small man being 
jrat out of business ; I never dreamed of such a thing. 

Mr. Curry. I did not think you meant to. 



44 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Jones. I did not mean it in that way; I just mean this, that 
those people who are not able to go into Alaska and conduct their 
canneries along sanitary lines, whether they are big or small, should 
be made to stop, even if it is necessary to close up the cannery. I 
think that would be largely overcome if the officials had ample ways 
and means for getting around all the time. And that means, in 
southeastern Alaska, three or four good boats, instead of one poor 
boat. One or two in central Alaska and one in Bristol Bay. 

Mr. Curry. I think you ought to have boats of your own to a suffi- 
cient number. 

Mr. Rowe. Give us an idea of the character of the boats required 
for the inspection service. 

Mr. Jones. You mean the size? 

Mr. Rowe. Yes. 

Mr. Jones. It should be large enough to carry seven or eight men, 
in addition to two or three wardens, because it might be necessary to 
send a number of officials and they might have to live on the boat 
for days, and they should be comfortable. 

Mr. Rowe. Is that large enough to live in those waters? 

Mr. Jones In southeastern Alaska I am referring to now. 

Mr. Rowe. In around the islands? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; and they should be fast. This is one of the 
essential points. 

Mr. Rowe. How many knots an hour. 

Mr. Jones. It should be capable of making 15 or 16 knots at least. 
It is absolutely useless to pass any law, I do not care what it is, 
unless the Federal Government provide boats and perhaps a few more 
men. That is the real reason, or largely so, that the violations that 
have occurred in Alaska have not been apprehended. 

Mr. Rowe. Give us some idea of how you would enforce the laws. 
You know in many of the operations you are speaking of there you 
would have to go a great distance, several days' journey? 

Mr. Jones. They are not enforced at all in some of the places. 
They may not be violating the law in those places, but if they are, 
the violators are not apprehended because it is impossible for the 
wardens to get to many places they should. Therefore, that cannery, 
if at all isolated, remains uninspected. 

Mr. Rowe. And the courts, if any, are a long ways away from 
there ? 

Mr. Jones. There is court held at Juneau, and then they hold 
court at Ketchikan and they hold court at Unalaska ; also at Valclez. 
Court is held in Bristol Bay, a special session ; the Coast Guard cutter 
goes to this point as well as some other places, and court is held right 
on board of the cutter, and this may be only a few days in the entire 
season; I refer to the isolated points. 

The Chairman. You are speaking now of violations of the law by 
the canneries? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are not speaking with reference to the regu- 
lation of the fishing itself? 

Mr. Jones. I am speaking generally, because most of the canneries 
operate their own fishing gangs, directly or indirectly. I mean by 
that the men are employed by them. You asked me if I could give 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 45 

you the percentage, Mr. Curry, and how they violated the law. The 
principal way they are violating it is in fishing in waters that are 
elosed. For instance, seines either purse or haul ; the men are allowed 
or do so of their own volition, go out into these streams and fish at 
the very times the mouths of those streams should be left open for 
the fish to go up and spawn. 

I did not find in every case, by any means, they are violating the 
laws, but I did see the law 7 violated. And it comes right back to the 
point that probably I did not see all the violations; but I watched 
very carefully, and I did not use a cannery boat all the time I was 
there or accept any favors, so that there could be no possible criticism 
by anybody who might feel that I went there in any way prejudiced. 
I went there in tw T o Government vessels covering my whole trip, the 
Osprey in southeastern Alaska, and the Albatross from Juneau west 
to Bering Sea and back to Juneau. 

Mr. Curry. Did you see many violations of the law ? 

Mr. Jones. You are speaking of fishing? 

Mr. Curry. Any violations. 

Mr. Jones. I saw a number of violations of fishing; in proportion 
to the amount of fishing that I saw done, not over 25 per cent were 
violations. 

Mr. Hardy. Was it not to the interest of those larger canneries 
who are seeking to turn out proper products to let you into viola- 
tions, especially where the smaller canneries or anybody else were 
putting up unwholesome food? Is it not a fact that the mere in- 
dulgence of that practice by ••. part of the canneries there has a 
tendency to injure the reputation of the whole business? 

Mr. Jones. It no doubt has, sir; and therefore it would be unfair 
to make too much of the point that the amount of inferior salmon 
that is canned, because it is so small that I should not lay too much 
stress on it. 

Mr. Hardy. Does not that very amount injure the interests of 
those who try to keep within the laws ? 

Mr. Jones. No doubt it would if the true situation of affairs were 
not made known. That is, the full truth. 

The Chairman. I suppose this is the point the judge has in mind, 
that it is to the interest of every cannery in Alaska that wants to 
build up trade for salmon, that the output shall be wholesome, well 
selected and well canned, and have a good reputation on the market; 
and if inferior goods come on the market from time to time that that 
hurts the whole industry? 

Mr. Jones. There is no doubt in my mind that a majority of the 
canneries in Alaska will not condone or allow any such thing to 
happen if they could prevent it; because I believe they are looking 
out for their own interests and trying to do things in the very best 
possible manner as far as canning salmon properly is concerned. 

Mr. Hardy. Does not the same thing apply also to the fishermen 
who are catching at an improper place or times of fishing? Are 
not those who obey the law interested in seeing that everybody else 
obeys the law in that matter? 

Mr. Jones. Well, I do not know about that. I did not find the 
large canneries so careful about how they get the fish; it is what kind 
of fish they put in their cans. 



46 ALASKA FI6HEBIES. 

Mr. Hardy. The violators work then to some extent to the ad- 
vantage of the canneries by bringing the fruits of their illicit labors 
to the canneries ; is that the idea ? 

Mr. Jones. My point is that the large canneries and the men who 
are fishing for them were violating the law just as much as the small 
canneries were in this respect. 

Mr. Hardy. And was it not to the interest of the large canneries 
to support the men who bring fish to them ? 

Mr. Jones. Some of them may not have known it. The owners 
of those canneries might not have been conversant with the situation 
at all. 

Mr. Hardy. I think we can all draw our own inference along that 
line. 

Mr. Jones. I have no right to say they were, because most of them 
do not live there ; the superintendents are there and they may be 30 
or 50 miles from the fishing ground. I took it up with them and 
they said they did not authorize any such violations. 

Mr. Eowe. What is the practice; don't they pay so much per 
fish? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rowe. They do not pay the men by the day who go out with 
the boats, do they? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Eowe. Some of them do? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir ; some of them do that way. 

Mr. Rowe. I thought the habit up there was 

Mr. Jones. Not altogether. 

Mr. Rowe. And they had to bring in so many fish? 

Mr. Jones. The independent fisherman gets so much per fish, and 
there is a great temptation when there are eertain favorable condi- 
tions made possible by high or low water for them to step over the 
dead line a little bit. I can understand it. 

Mr. Row t e. I think you ought to tell us something about the 
salmon's habit of spawning so that we will know when you tell us of 
their stopping in the streams. 

Mr. Curry. Don't you think we ought to get through with this 
line first? 

Mr. Rowe. All right. 

Mr. Curry. In reality, I think possibly the canneries pretty well 
obey the law, with the exception of a few small canneries. 

Mr. Jones. They do in most of the canneries. 

Mr. Curry. Most of the canneries take their men up from San 
Francisco or from Portland or from Seattle for the season? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. Now, those men fish for the canneries at a monthly 
wage ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. But many of the fish are bought by the canneries 
from the independent fishermen who live in Alaska 7 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. Most of the violations of the law is in the fishing and 
not in the canning, isn't it ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 47 

Mr. Curry. And most of the violators are independents — the 
small men who go out there and catch fish and sell them 7 

Mr. Jones. No, sir; I could not say that; I would not make that 
statement, because of the fact that those big gangs employed by the 
large canneries, in several instances, were violating the laws them- 
selves. And I think it is about a toss-up between the independent 
fishermen and the large fishermen ; at any rate, from my observation 
it was. 

Mr. Hadley. Your whole point is, as I understand it, you are 
advocating an extension of the facilities for the purpose of inspec- 
tion to enforce compliance with the law wherever there may be 
violations ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. And that is the sole purpose of this part of your 
statement ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. It does not go so much to the merits of this bill as 
some other features of your statement I presume will, but it is a 
matter of information for the committee. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Curry asked me the question of the proportion of 
violations. I was not up there to arrest anybody ; I was there to see 
for the purpose of improving conditions. I did not tell anybody 
where I was going, although I have no doubt they got wind of it 
sometimes. The very fact I walked into some canneries and found 
conditions not exactly what they should be is good evidence they 
were not forewarned that I was going to be there. I never told any- 
body where I was going except the captain of the boat. 

Mr. Curry. Did you see anv fish canned that would be unhealthy 
to eat? 

Mr. Jones. I did, sir. 

Mr. Curry. Of course, what you want the inspection service for, 
more than anything else, is, first of all. to preserve the fish, to keep 
the run from being depleted, and, second, to inspect the canneries so 
that the canned salmon are canned in such a manner that they w T ould 
not be injurious to human health ? 

Mr. Jones. And the latter was a very small proportion. But I 
found two or three canneries where conditions were such that they 
were not only actualty putting bad fish in the can but the conditions 
around the cannery were very bad indeed. 

Mr. Curry. You ought to have authority to stop that. 

Mr. Jones. I did. I was not there to arrest anybody; simply 
because that was not the object of my trip. 

Mr. Curry. No; I know. 

Mr. Jones. But I did stop it to the extent of having thrown over- 
board many salmon and also some of the filled cans. 

Mr. Curry. There was. one cannery? 

Mr. Jones. That was the one I just referred to. There were sev- 
eral about as bad. 

Mr. Hadley. The point is you have the authority, but do not have 
the means; is not that it? 

Mr. Jones. We do not have the means : certainly the authority, to 
a great extent, is in the law, but they have no way of enforcing it 
either by making a patrol of the waters or inspecting these canneries. 



48 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

But the principal thing is there is no method or way of getting to the 
canneries. 

Now, at a number of the large canning companies where they are 
inspected, at four or five of the canneries I found each cannery the 
same way, immaculately clean. Sometimes they would have a great 
many fish there and sometimes they would not have any, but the 
general impression I got from the visit of 50 canneries or there- 
abouts was that they were handling the fish in a proper manner. 
And I hesitated to say regarding these three or four cases, and em- 
phasizing too much the fact that those canneries were putting in 
cans fish which they should not, because it would be misconstrued. 
If I just made an offhand statement they were packing salmon in 
Alaska that was unhealthful, it would not be fair, because I believe 
95 per cent of the canneries there are packing fish that are fit for 
food. 

Mr. Hardy. That brings up the very point I suggested a few 
moments ago — the fact that there is 5 per cent of unfit may damage 
the whole output? 

Mr. Jones. Those canneries, Judge Hardy, that I warned for han- 
dling bad fish, I do not know that they will ever do that again, be- 
cause they had a pretty good warning and the threat of arrest was 
held over their heads. And it was admitted to me that two of the 
canneries in question had not the money to handle their business as 
they should. 

Mr. Hardy. Unless those who obey the law help, you will not 
break up the violations of the law. 

Mr. Jones. Did you ask me the question, Mr. Hadley, or was it 
Mr. Curry — one of you gentlemen asked me a question regarding 
the violations of fishing. I did not answer it because I was dis- 
concerted at the time. 

Mr. Hadley. I did not ask with regard to violations. 

Mr. Curry. No; I asked in reference to violations of fishing. 

Mr. Jones. It is a very easy thing, due to tides and currents. 

The Chairman. Considering this bill — you have read this bill and 
perhaps may have had some part in framing it ? 

Mr. Jones. This bill is an improvement, I may say, on the bill in- 
troduced in the last Congress and which was introduced automati- 
cally in this Congress. 

The Chairman. What bill is that? 

Mr. Jones. H. K. 753. 

The Chairman. In the last Congress? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who introduced it in that Congress? 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Carlin, of Virginia. I consider this bill now be- 
fore your committee — 9528 — a good bill. I have gone over it very 
carefully and digested it thoroughly and I think the bill is good 
just as it is. The point for my telling what I have seen, the different 
methods of fishing and why conditions are so in Alaska, only em- 
phasizes the fact that these conditions will be more or less corrected 
by this bill now before you, if vessels are furnished to enforce the 
law. Unless such action is soon taken, I do not see any use of in- 
troducing any more legislation. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 49 

The Chairman. I have read your report and you dwell at length 
on the manner of fishing and the necessity of protecting the mouths 
of the streams? 
- Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the need for an unobstructed course for the 
fish going to the spawning grounds and the waste in various methods 
of fishing — are they all covered and those conditions corrected in 
this bill, do you think? 

Mr. Jones. I think they are; yes, sir. I think they will be amply 
protected if there is an opportunity for patroling the waters during 
the fishing seasons. I do not think there is any other argument to 
offer for the future welfare of Alaska fisheries if the Federal Gov- 
ernment will give the vessels to enable the wardens to enforce the law. 
I found the men who are in charge up there, 10 in all, a fine lot of 
men. They are conversant with the conditions there and they are 
doing the best they can. It is a hazardous work going around to 
these traps, on account of the rough water, etc., and they are doing 
well. 

Mr. Hadley. Is it not a difficult matter to maintain a strict com- 
pliance with the law on account of the hazardous conditions and 
state of the tide and weather you speak of on the part of the fisher- 
men? 

Mr. Jones. I started to speak of this. 

Mr. Hadley. I thought perhaps it would be a fair statement to 
have introduced in the record, so far as it is true. I am familiar 
with those conditions on Puget Sound. 

Mr. Jones. Regarding the closing of traps, I have seen times in 
Alaska when one could not think of closing a trap during the weekly 
close season ; nobody could get near the trap without endangering his 
life. 

The Chairman. On account of rough water? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the difference in the tides there ? 

Mr. Jones. They vary. All the way from 4 or 5 feet up to 30 feet. 
On Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet there is great variance between high 
and low tide, and it varies all through Alaska. 

The Chairman. Take southeastern Alaska, in among those islands. 

Mr. Jones. It does not vary so much. 

The Chairman. The waters are protected there by the islands? 

Mr. Jones. Of course, there are some exposed waters — Frederick 
Sound, Clarence Strait, etc. : it gets pretty rough sometimes, more so 
than you have any idea of. These waters are wide and the wind 
blows up and down them with considerable force. 

Take the gill nets; it is almost impossible to keep them always 
where they belong; the current and tide will take them in prohibited 
waters in spite of the fishermen. They are usually handled by one 
man, and I think they try to do the best they can. 

Mr. Curry. That is what I meant when I said it was possible to 
inspect that business out of existence where the inspector wanted to 
do it. 

Mr. Jones. I do not think they w T ant to do that. 

Mr. Curry. You would not want to do it; but human nature is 
human nature. 



50 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. Why would they be interested to do it; what mo- 
tive would they have to do it if they had any sense ? 

Mr. Jones. I do not know of any. 

Mr. Curry. Some men are like policemen; they have to do some- 
thing and make a report to keep their jobs. And some men have the 
idea it is a whole lot easier to deal with one big cannery than it is 
with half a dozen small canneries, just the same as the proposition 
out here in the forest reserves ; it is easier for the forester to deal with 
1 man with 3,000 head of cattle than it is to deal with 10 men with 
300 head of cattle each. It is almost impossible now for a man to 
get on the forest reserve and get a right to run only 300 head, while 
any man can get a chance to run 3,000. Of course, I know the Fish- 
eries Department would not do that, and I believe i ngiving the 
inspectors the number of ships they want and a reasonable number 
of men. 

Mr. Jones. I did not find any tendency that way, Mr. Curry. In 
fact, there were a great many cases brought' to my attention — I should 
say 20 — where our wardens had shown wise discretion in not prose- 
cuting, claiming the conditions made extenuating circumstances, and 
therefore warranted letting those people off with a warning. And I 
think they try to do that as a rule ; I do not think there is any desire 
to persecute ; they are broad-minded men, and, as I say, they are thor- 
oughly conversant with the conditions there; some of them have been 
there for 10 or 15 years, others less — 3 or 4 years. 

Mr. Hadley. Is the extent of fishing gear in Alaskan waters any 
menace to the maintenance of the industry in your judgment if the 
industry be properly policed and adequate attention be given to the 
maintenance of the hatcheries ? 

Mr. Jones. No, sir; I do not think it is. 

Mr. Hadley. Those are two conditions, however, that are essential 
to the maintenance of the industry ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there any depletion of the supply of fish appre- 
ciable now % 

Mr. Jones. The season varies, but I should say not. The year I 
was there, and I tried to bear this fact in my mind, it was a rather 
off year. You know how the salmon run, off years for sockeyes and 
off years for humpbacks, and so on, and no doubt Mr. Bower will 
tellyou of it in detail. That is a matter of record. And I did not 
findthat anybody, comparatively speaking, thought the future sup- 
ply was in jeopardy. I think we need hatcheries there; I think the 
work they are doing at the Government hatcheries is splendid, but 
more money is needed to keep the salmon before releasing them until 
they reach the fingerling stage. 

The Chairman. If those spawning grounds are protected, is not 
that the best method of propagating the fish ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir ; and I think artificial propagation is good. 

The Chairman. But the other is the natural way. 

Mr. Jones. There are a great many more eggs saved proportionally 
by artificial propagation than there are by natural propagation. 

The Chairman. You are referring now to the great waste by the 
bears going to the streams and throwing the fish out ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir ; and also by the gulls. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 51 

Mr. Rowe. And also by being killed in going up, isn't it — at Ketch- 
ikan stream there, going over the falls? 

Mr. Jones. I found one stream where the salmon were piled at a 
little slough just below the falls. There must have been 250. I opened 
a number of them, and not one of them had spawned. And it is 
just another argument in support of hatcheries. 

The Chairman. What impressed me most in reading your report 
was the necessity of keeping those ways open for them to reach the 
spawning ground and to remove obstructions in those streams by 
fallen timber. And then there are falls where, as you say, the fish 
were unable to get over the obstructions. 

Mr. Jones. It is not by any means the hand of man alone that is 
destroying the salmon. They utilize those fish for food purposes. 
I saw hundreds of salmon that were being destroyed, owing to the 
fact that some obstruction in the stream prevented their getting to 
their spawning ground. 

The Chairman. And then fishermen will go right to those places 
where they are trying to get by ? 

Mr. Jones. IS T ot necessarily. I was referring especially to the 
Silver Salmon Falls, Prince of Wales Island, which are about 18 feet 
high, and the water below for a mile was just a mass of salmon. I 
sat at the falls for an hour, and I do not think I counted three fish 
that scaled the falls, and I am not sure these got up ; it looked to me 
as if they had. And it just emphasized the fact if the Government 
would spend a little money to blow out such obstructions those fish 
would get up to the spawning ground and save a great many eggs. 
Then the bear and the gulls, and for the benefit of you gentlemen 
who have not read my report, I might just cite a case on Kodiak 
Island, up in Larson Bay. I saw several thousand salmon struggling 
up a small stream, and I estimated there were 10,000 gulls actually 
riding those salmon and picking out their eyes. That is the first 
thing they will do to them. I know many of those salmon never 
spawned, because they were lying dead all around me; and they 
could have been saved, at least their eggs could have been. 

I just show here, by way of illustration, the bear and the American 
maganzer. I killed several of the latter, opened their crops ; and 
found them just packed with little salmon and eggs. And the eagles 
are very destructive, too. Sometimes you see a hundred eagles 
right on the side of those streams destroying these salmon which 
have not spawned. 

Mr. Hadley. What is the estimated average of the number that 
spawn — of the eggs — in Alaska of red salmon? 

Mr. Jones. Three thousand five hundred, I think. The hair seal 
is very destructive to salmon. I show an illustration here: There are 
four 50-pound king salmon that these aquatic animals destroyed. I 
was in a bay one evening and went over to the trap, and there were 
two hair seals in there. We killed them, and later found every sal- 
mon in the trap was destroyed and mutilated by these hair seals. I 
do not mean they were all torn to pieces, but they were just injured 
so they could not be used for canning purposes. It is not by any 
means the hand of man that is taking all the salmon. I do think 
that the artificial propagation of salmon is very wise and going to 
help materially the future preservation of the great salmon industry. 



52 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

With these suggestions put into effect I am not fearful that it is 
going to be destroyed. 

Mr. Hadley. You approve of the method proposed by this bill of 
the Government taking over the private hatcheries? 

Mr. Jones. I do, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. Does this bill follow the lines of the existing statute 
in regard to marking lines of streams and protecting the mouths of 
streams with certain limitations or in anywise change it? 

Mr. Jones. It is broader. One of the serious handicaps to the 
fisherman in placing his net is to know where the dead line is; and 
I think the Government should put markers at the mouths of 
streams without delay. 

Mr. Hadley. The bill provides for that? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; it does. 

Mr. Rowe. How near to the small creeks or brooks that they run 
up — how near to those streams can they fish ? 

Mr. Bower. Under the present law, in the case of the red-salmon 
streams, they may fish with movable apparatus within 300 feet of the 
mouth; that is, if the stream is less than 500 feet in width. In the 
case of other than red-salmon streams they may fish right in the 
mouth of the stream so long as the fishing gear is not extended more 
than one-third of the distance across the stream. The present bill 
marks a distinct departure along this line. It provides that all fish- 
ing gear shall be 500 yards away from the mouth of all streams 
less than 500 feet in width rather than just red-salmon streams, as 
provided in the present law for fixed fishing appliances. The change 
in this bill will do a great deal for the protection of the small 
streams, especially in southeast Alaska. Of course, it must be re- 
membered that there is a considerable catch of salmon entirely away 
from stream mouths, notably in pound nets ; and such fish are un- 
doubtedly of better quality, as a rule. 

Mr. Hardy. Mr. Bower, how do you tell what the mouth of the 
stream is? If a man is entering into the bigger waters for a good 
long distance here or there, who locates what they call the point of 
the mouth of the stream when you want to fix 500 feet away from it ? 

Mr. Bower. That, under the present situation, rests largely upon 
the judgment of the warden who is enforcing the law or making the 
inspection. Now, we aim to correct that by fixing markers and 
monuments designating the mouth definitely, so that there will be 
no question at any time and so that the personal equation in this 
matter will practically cease to exist. 

Mr. Rowe. How long is the spawning season; that is, the season 
while they are running up the streams ? 

Mr. Bower. It extends over a period possibly of three months, 
considering all species of salmon. 

Mr. Rowe. In what months for lower Alaska ? 

Mr. Bower. Principally the months of June, July, and August. 

Mr. Rowe. And there is quite a lot of fishing during all that 
time, isn't there? 

Mr. Bower. All that time. The active fishing season in southeast 
Alaska begins along in June and continues into September. In 
Bristol Bay and the far western district, where approximately one- - 
third of the fish are caught, the season is only about 25 days long, 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 53 

confined almost solely to the month of July. You sec Alaska is so 
large that conditions vary a great deal in the widely separated 
sections. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further from Mr. Jones? 

Mr. Jones. I was just about to say that I think this hill is correct 
and a number of the things seem to me advisable; that is, to limit 
the fishing areas, increasing the distance from the mouth of streams, 
and it also increases the period of the weekly closed season, and all 
such things are going to help the perpetuation of the salmon 
materially. 

The Chairman. What provision is made in this bill for opening 
up those rivers and creeks and removing those obstructions? 

Mr. Jones. There is not anything specifically, sir. 

Mr. Bower. Funds will be provided by the bill which will enable 
us to undertake that work along more extensive lines than we are 
able to do at present. To-day we have a man out removing some 
barriers from streams, a direct result. I think, of the work Dr. Jones 
did in Alaska two years ago. It is a matter of dollars and cents 
ver}'- largely. 

Mr. Hadley. If appropriations are made for that purpose, you 
can take care of that, can you not; that is a matter of appropria- 
tions, is it not ? 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Hadley, in this bill the taxes revert to the fish- 
eries, or at least part of them. 

Mr. Curry. The department can do that with the money now 
appropriated. 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir ; we are doing part of the work now. 

Mr. Jones. There is one other thing, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
speak of the whaling situation and the Killisnoo fertilizer factory. 
I found both whaling stations being well conducted, utilizing every 
portion of the whale at the two stations. One I showed you is down 
on Baranof Island and the other is out on the Aleutian Islands at 
Akutan, and they are making use of all the whales and not wasting 
any part of them. 

There was some controversy about the waste, and I thought it 
would be interesting for you to know that now 7 they are utilizing all. 

Eegarding the Killisnoo fertilizer factory, it mentions in this bill 
that three years, I think it is, from the passage of the bill 

Mr. Bower. Section 13. 

Mr. Jones (continuing). That it shall be abandoned. Of course. 
I am sorry that it is going to be so long ; but if it seems Avise, why, I 
have no objection to it. In the case of the herring in southeastern 
Alaska, there is a cry against this practice, largely because supply 
is being depleted. They use a great many thousand barrels of her- 
ring for catching halibut and is absolutely essential in the taking of 
halibut. In 1914 they had to send away for some of their bait. One 
of my strongest objections to the factory's continuation is that they 
use any kind of fish. 

Mr. Kowe. That is what I noticed when I was there. 

Mr. Jones. I went in there in the evening. When I landed they had 

just unloaded this big scow and they had codfish, halibut, and salmon 

lying in that pile of fish. Of course, they explained to me that that 

had never happened before, but you gentlemen can draw your own 

46232— pt 2—16 2 



54 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

inferences. I think it is wrong to be grinding up for fertilizer all 
kinds of valuable food fish, and I think all are going to eventually 
regret it unless that is stopped. I am sorry for this concern, because 
they have recently bought it. The other concern was probably afraid 
something like this was going to happen. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is the law now not strong enough to prevent that ? 

Mr. Jones. No, sir; there is no provision at all, sir. In this pile 
•of fish were 800,000 herring, fine fish, as you will see by the picture 
light here. I took the photograph. Lying right on top of the her- 
ring are the other kind of fish. 

Mr. Rowe. They unload them just like they unload coal, don't 
they ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rowe. With a big drop scoop ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. Of course, they are all more or less mashed. 

Mr. Rowe. And other boats are waiting to be brought right in as 
soon as that is unloaded. It is a fierce proposition. 

The Chairman. Are the herring not good food fish ? 

Mr. Rowe. I presume they are. 

Mr. Greene. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Rowe. They are not the same as our herring. 

Mr. Bower. They are very closely related. 

Mr. Jones. There is the best illustration of what I could tell you. 
Of course I think we want to be fair with everybody in the change 
of any law, but I do not think, with Alaska growing at the rate it 
is now and the fact they are now using herring and shipping to 
the States, that this kind of a thing can long continue. 

The Chairman. I say the herring is not only valuable for bait 
but for food. They are fine food fish, are they not? 

Mr. Jones. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. Rowe. Is there any provision in this bill for compensation at 
all to the owners of that property ? 

Mr. Jones. Section 13. 

Mr. Bower. There is nothing in the way of compensation; they 
are given three years in which to close up their business. This matter 
has been covered by previous bills in Congress and I may say that 
the representatives of the company then concerned agreed to the 
proposition. 

Mr. Jones. You see, that has all come up years ago — I do not 
know how many. Capt. Reynolds, when was this brought up before 
the department, this Killisnoo matter ? 

Mr. Reynolds. In 1912. 

Mr. Jones. I do not think it is fair to work a hardship on those 
people or any other people, but I do think that it ought to be stopped. 
And perhaps we had beter leave it three years and not compensate 
them, giving them time to get out of it whole. 

Mr. Rowe. Can the plant be used for a canning plant ? 

Mr. Jones. The plant was in pretty poor condition. 
Mr. Rowe. It is a tumble-down affair ? 

Mr. Jones. I do not know what has been done to it since I was 
there. 

Mr. Hardy. Is it not possible that even with a law forbidding 
the destruction of fish for fertilizer that yet there will be some 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 55 

offal and some refuse and some unavoidable dying of fish and there 
might be fertilizer properly useful? 

Mr. Jones. There is a company, formed in 1914 and located at 
Point Ward, just above Ketchikan, and they go around with boats 
to the canneries and pick up all their offal. Heretofore the canneries 
have dumped all that offal right off the dock, which has made a 
terrible condition around some of those towns and the stench was 
awful. This company is doing business in southeastern Alaska. 
This reducing plant is waiting to see what disposition is made of the 
Killisnoo matter, because they want to handle the herring, and if 
this concern is allowed to go on it would not be fair to permit them 
to monopolize the business; and if they are allowed to go on this 
other concern is just waiting to get in on the herring, too. 

Mr. Hadley. I just want to interrupt you a moment on another 
matter, because I have to go in a short while ; I want to ask you, while 
you are making your statement, if 'you know what percentage of 
the Alaska pack is caught by pound nets and what by the other classes 
of gear ? 

Mr. Jones. I did know. Mr. Bower could better give that, I 
think, because I have lost track of those details. 

Mr. Hadley. Then I will ask one other question: From personal 
observation on the ground, is there any fishing to any extent by 
power boats — the use of power boats with nets? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir ; they are using power boats almost — you mean 
in drawing haul seins ? 

Mr. Hadley. Yes ; and in going from place to place with the boats, 
without any fixed plant? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. The power boats go out and get the fish. 

Mr. Hadley. What class of nets? 

Mr. Jones. All kinds. These boats go to the traps and to the 
purse seins and haul seins. 

Mr. Hadley. They do not use nets in connection with the boats 
themselves ? 

Mr. Jo^es. They simply go back and forth handling the fish from 
the fishing grounds to the canneries. 

Mr. Hadley. I did not know whether they used the boats in catch' 
ing the fish or just for delivering the fish. 

The Chairman. There are trawlers? 

Mr. Jones. There are trollers. 

The Chairman. Steam trawlers? 

Mr. Jones. These power boats are used principally for the catch- 
ing, by trollying, of Chinook salmon. This is almost a new industry, 
as far as power boats are concerned; they formerly used dug-outs 
and skiffs ; now they are using power boats to catch Chinook salmon. 

Mr. Hadley. I was getting at the method of fishing where two 
boats are used together, whether they are employing power boats in 
fishing, where they have stationary fixed appliances for stringing 
the nets between the boats. Did you see anything of that kind ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. But it has not developed there to any extent yet? 

Mr. Jones. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Hardy. I want to get a little clearer the question of what I 
had in mind when I asked the question a few moments ago. Here is 



56 ALASKA PISHEKIES. 

a fertilizer plant now being used in the destruction of food fish and 
fish that ought to be given to other purposes, and the suggestion is 
made that if we stop their operations we must compensate them. I 
wanted to know whether there was anything in the way of that same 
plant continuing to manufacture fertilizer out of the legitimate 
refuse that would be left over from the fisheries proper if they exer- 
cised the proper effort to get the refuse and utilized that ? 

Mr. Jones. There would be nothing in the way of their attempt- 
ing it, but I question very much, with the widely distributed canner- 
ies, whether it would be practicable. They already have one in 
southeastern Alaska which I have mentioned, just above Ketchikan. 
I do not know how they are doing ; it is an experiment. Some of the 
canneries sell none of the offal to them; they won't bother with it 
because it gets in their way and they throw it overboard ; and whether 
the Killisnoo people would find it a paying proposition or not, I 
question it. They certainly could attempt it. 

Mr. Hardy. It seems to me there would come in the proper place 
for the exercise of such ingenuity as the Armours did when they 
began to utilize every part of the beef ; and if they were required to 
do it, these big canneries would find it to their interest in maintain- 
ing sanitary conditions and cleanliness to cooperate with the fertili- 
zer plant. 

Mr. Jones. Judge Hardy, you see the canneries there are so widely 
distributed that it takes too much time to get around to perhaps 10, 
20, or 30 miles to the next cannery, that I doubt seriously whether 
they could gather that economically enough to make it pay. I do 
not know, but it is my judgment those canneries are too far apart 
to warrant picking up of the offal and taking it to one place. With 
the Armour people all is concentrated. 

Mr. Hardy. Yes ; that is so. But if those canneries are large in- 
stitutions there must be a large amount of refuse. 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. And in getting rid of it it seems to me they could 
easily manufacture it. 

Mr. Jones. You see the Point Ward Co. has a contract for most 
all those canneries in there now. 

Mr. Hardy. To use their refuse for fertilizer ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. Isn't that the legitimate way for this thing to be 
done? 

Mr. Jones. I think so. 

Mr. Hardy. Where is this plant located that is doing the de- 
structive work shown in this picture? 

Mr. Jones. It is right there, sir [indicating on map] . 

Mr. Hardy. How many canneries are there in the vicinity of that 
fertilizer plant? 

Mr. Jones. Three or four. That would not pay them. You see 
down here at Ketchikan, where this other fertilizer factory or re- 
ducing plant is located, there are 25 or 30 canneries. 

Mr. Hardy. Then it about gets itself down to this, that where 
the canneries are close enough to economically assemble the refuse 
in that one place that would be done by some canneries, but this man 
who has his independent fertilizer plant probably would have to 
sell out to them or move to some other place. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 57 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. I do not know how long all those contracts 
run; I know he made contracts with some of them for three years. 

Mr. Hardy. Then one other question I want to ask you: Is it 
your opinion that the continuation of the use of a plant simply to 
grind up all sorts of fish into fertilizer will have the effect of de- 
pleting the supply in the long run? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. And be injurious to the whole industry? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. Can fish be utilized profitably for fertilizer and for 
food purposes? 

Mr. Jones. I think sometimes under certain conditions there is 
more money in fertilizer, but the point is this, that they do not 
confine their business to just herring, but any fish that they take in 
their haul sein they use apparently for fertilizer. 

Mr. Goodwin. Of course it is all right to use the refuse and offal 
for that purpose? 

Mr. Jones. I am talking about fish. There is no cannery there at 
Killisnoo; nothing but this reducing plant. And when they have 
other fish mixed up with the herring they are not going to pick 
them over, and the point is if they are allowed to exist why should 
not other companies do it, too. You certainly can not give them 
the exclusive right. 

Mr. Goodwin. And certainly it is wrong if any of that is done. 

Mr. Jones. The company above Ketchikan are just waiting the 
decision on this bill. Their representative told me when he was in 
Washington he hoped nothing would be done because his company 
wanted to go into the herring business and use it partly for fertilizer ; 
southeastern Alaska can not stand this strain. 

Mr. Hardy. That is the very point I am making ; if it is an indus- 
try that is profitable and it does not hurt the supply, I do not think 
you have any right to interfere with it; but if in those fertilizer 
plants using herring and other fish, or herring alone, that does 
menace the entire industry and threaten to deplete the supply, then 
we ought to interfere with it. 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. I think we ought to interfere with it anyway to 
conserve the fish. 

Mr. Hardy. That is what I say, if it is necessary to conserve the 
supply. 

Mr. Jones. I think it is going to jeopardize the future supply of 
herring by allowing that fertilizer factory to exist indefinitely. 

Mr. Hardy. That is what I wanted to understand. 

Mr. Rowe. Are they canning herring at all up in Alaska ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; they are. 

Mr. Rowe. Where? 

Mr. Jones. Right at Petersburg. 

Mr. Rowe. It is a very much larger herring than we buy isn't it ? 

Mr. Jones. There are some small herring ; they take the small ones, 
too. Of course they have only been saving the large ones because 
the industry is in its infancy; but it is going to be a big industry, 
and all sizes will eventually be utilized for food. 

Mr. Hardy. What do they ship the large ones for? 

Mr. Jones. Because they are more salable. 



58 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Hardy. Especially for food? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; and later they will ship smaller ones just 
as they do in Norway. I think the industry is increasing up there 
each year. 

Mr. Hardy. I have no further questions unless there is something 
else Mr. Jones wants to present. 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Jones, take this bill : You think it goes far 
enough along all lines, do you not? 

Mr. Jones. I do, sir; and I think the method of using part of the 
license fees and taxes to protect the fisheries is going to give ample 
funds for increasing the artificial propagation and also the inspec- 
tion of the canneries and the fishing grounds. 

The Chairman. This bill provides, referring to the revenue feat- 
ures of the bill, that the person or persons therein referred to, cor- 
porations, associations, and partnerships, shall in lieu of all other 
Federal or Territorial license fees and taxes therefor and thereon pay 
annual license fees and taxes on said business and output as pro- 
vided in the act. Now, for instance, in section 2 it provides that a 
license fee of $5 shall be imposed and paid on each canning, mild- 
curing, salting, smoking, fish-freezing, whaling, or other wholesale 
fish-dealing establishment — $5 for each cannery. Then for each 
pound net, $50 ; for each fish wheel, etc., $25. Then it provides that 
every licensee employing any fishing appliance or method " herein- 
before mentioned " shall, by December 31 of each year, in addition 
to the license fees provided in the act. pay for the raw aquatic prod- 
ucts taken bj^ him as follows: For king, chinook, or spring salmon, 
and for steelhead trout or salmon at the rate of $2 per thousand fish, 
etc. 

Then we have again: Every person engaged in canning salmon or 
other food fish or shellfish shall, by December 31 of each year, pay 
a tax on the output as follows, according to species : King, chinook, 
or spring; red, sockeye, or blueback; coho or medium red; and 
steelhead trout or salmon, 4 cents per case, etc. 

Then again : Every person engaged in curing or preserving fish, 
or manufacturing fishery products, except by canning, shall, by De- 
cember 31 of each year, pay a tax thereon as follows : Mild-cured 
salmon, 75 cents per tierce ; pickled salmon, 15 cents per barrel, etc. 

Now, these are different taxes or license fees provided by this bill 
as affecting this industry. What local taxes do they have to pay in 
Alaska in addition to these ? This bill provides that these license fees 
and taxes shall be in lieu of all other taxes, Federal and Territorial. 

Mr. Jones. At the present time you mean, sir? 

The Chairman. Yes. Do you understand from this bill that this 
industry can not be taxed in any other manner than provided in this 
bill for local purposes? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Or by the Territorial government of Alaska ? 

Mr. Jones. I do understand it that way, sir. 

The Chairman. These taxes include the tax on plants of the can- 
neries themselves? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And all their real and personal property ? 



Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I can- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 59 

The Chairman. And capital stock invested and their earnings. 
In other words, this bill is intended to include all forms of taxation 
and the Territory of Alaska would have no source of revenue from 
this industry except the 50 per cent provided for in this bill? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir ; that is m} 7 understanding. 

The Chairman. In that connection, would this bill diminish the 
revenue derived by the Territorial government under existing law 
or increase it? 

Mr. Jones. It would increase it. 

Mr. Rowe. Have the} 7 been consulted — the Territorial government? 

Mr. Jones. About this specific item? 

Mr. Rowe. About this tax proposition? 

Mr. Jones. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Rowe. Do you know? 

Mr. Bower. I did not catch the question. 

Mr. Rowe. Has the Territorial government been consulted about 
this provision we have in here for taxes? 

Mr. Bower. I know a letter was written by the Commissioner of 
Fisheries to the governor of Alaska on the subject ; I am not able to 
state the nature of the reply. Dr. Smith is present and perhaps he 
can do so. 

The Chairman. We will investigate that question thoroughly. 

Mr. Jones. May I make a statement ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Jones. In the bill, which was drawn soon after my return — it 
was a very difficult thing to shape up a good bill in a few weeks. I 
did not get back here until about the 1st of December and I had my 
report to write first, and it was only to fulfill a promise that some 
measure would be introduced during the short session of Congress 
that prompted me to hurry the bill as I did. I did not think it was 
a perfect bill by any means. I refer now to the Carlin bill. In that 
bill there was no reference made, such as in the bill under considera- 
tion, for taxing the raw fish so much per thousand. And when I 
saw this new bill, with which I had nothing to do in framing, it 
pleased me very much, because I realized at a glance why it was 
framed as it is, and I will explain just as I see it. It is to bring 
about a more equitable plan of taxation. For example, here is a man 
with a pound net in one section. He pays $50 for that license. Here 
is another man, perhaps 20 miles away, who pays $50 for a similar 
license. The first man may have an unusually good location or a 
good season; he may take 100,000 salmon. Now, the man with the 
other pound net may only take 10,000 fish, and he naturally would 
object. He says: " Here I am paying $50. as much as the other man, 
and he caught ten times as many fish as I did." Now, it strikes me, 
after studying this bill, that it is fairer to the people concerned than 
to have just a general license and then a tax for the canned fish. 
They would pay a tax both on the fish and also on the canned prod- 
uct; or, if the} 7 ship the fish as frozen fish, they pay so much per 
thousand fish and so much per ton when shipping. 

Now, the point you bring up, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the 
Territory receives anything additional to the 50 per cent allowed for 
in section 2. That struck me as being equitable. It not only gives 
them more money than they have had in the past under other condi- 
tions; but it does away with the responsibility and labor of going 



60 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

to all these canneries throughout the Territory and assessing them, 
both the personal and real property, which I do not think under the 
present conditions they can begin to do, as so many of them are in- 
accessible. They may get to half of them; but if they do not get to 
the others, then they have not accomplished what is provided for in 
this bill. 

This is the way it appeals to me. I understand this morning that 
there was an objection to such a plan, on the exact grounds I do not 
know ; but the Territory would find it much easier and much more 
satisfactory to have 50 per cent of these license fees and taxes turned 
over to them than it would be to have the old form of assessment 
and having to cover a vast territory from Bristol Bay to Ketchikan 
simply because they have not the way to do it. 

I think the bill is drawn very well, this section 2 especially, and 
much better than provided in the earlier bill which was simply a 
tentative draft in order to give the gentlemen interested time to 
digest it between the two sessions of Congress. 

Does that answer you fully, sir ? 

STATEMENT OF MR. WARD T. BOWER, AGENT, ALASKA FISHERIES 
SERVICE, BUREAU OF FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COM- 
MERCE. 

The Chairman. Are you stationed here in Washington or on the 
Pacific coast? 

Mr. Bower. I am here in Washington part of the time and on the 
Pacific coast and in Alaska part of the time; perhaps six months 
here and six months there would be the average the last several 
years of my duty. 

The Chairman. How long have you been connected with the 
Alaska fisheries service? 

Mr. Bower. Six or seven years. 

The Chairman. The last six or seven years? 

Mr. Bower. In the last six or seven years. 

The Chairman. And what part of that time have you spent in 
Alaska investigating conditions as affecting fisheries? 

Mr. Bower. I have made five trips to Alaska. On one trip I was 
away from Washington seven months, most of which time was in 
Alaska. Several seasons I was there a shorter period. 

The Chairman. Did you visit all the fisheries in Alaska at that 
time? 

Mr. Bower. With one small exception I have visited every part 
of Alaska where important fishery work is conducted; there is one 
part of the Bristol Bay region that I never have visited in person. 

The Chairman. I wish we had a good map of Alaska, large 
enough so that we could see the various locations. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, I have one downstairs, if you 
will send for it. 

Mr. Bower. At the hearing a week ago to-day the Secretary of 
Commerce stated in most convincing fashion the broad polky of the 
department in respect to the bill now at hand, and the Commissioner 
of Fisheries outlined the chief additional features over the present 
law contemplated by this measure. If it meets with the pleasure of 
the committee, I shall, by direction of the Secretary of Commerce, 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 61 

endeavor to explain more in detail the purposes and advantages of 
this bill arid try to give you some first-hand information of a perti- 
nent character, based upon observations and studies which I have 
made in the course of half a dozen official trips to Alaska in as many 
years past. , 

But. before going into the details of the bill, may I ask your indul- 
gence for a moment to emphasize the importance of the fishery indus- 
try of Alaska. Taking the figures for 1914, the last which have been 
completely compiled, in round numbers the total investment was 
approximately $37,000,000. The number of persons engaged was 
21,200. The total value of the products was over $21,000,000. Of the 
foregoing approximately 85 per cent was represented by the salmon 
industry; the remainder was given over to the halibut, cod, whale, 
herring, and other less important industries. 

Mr. Kowe. Is that annually? 

Mr. Bower. That is an annual value. It may also be of interest 
to note the fact that since Alaska -was purchased, in 1867, the total 
yield of aquatic products has been about $275,000,000, of which ap- 
proximately $50,000,000 was for aquatic furs — chiefly fur seals. In 
the same period the production of mineral wealth has amounted to 
about $300,000,000 in round figures. The value of the annual yield 
of mineral wealth is now considerably in excess of that of the fishery 
products. 

The great potential wealth of the fishery has always impressed me 
and possibly may be of interest to this committee. I can illustrate 
the point in this way : When an ounce of gold or a pound of coal is 
taken from Alaska, it has been removed and destroyed forever so far 
as the territory is concerned, as it can not be replaced ; but in the case 
of the fishery industry the removal of a given quantity of salmon 
from the water does not represent a total loss, as year after year the 
same waters will continue to yield a rich return of a commodity which 
can be regarded only as a necessity of life. 

It is my belief that by intelligent regulation and conservation the 
fisheries of Alaska can be made to continue not only at their present 
high level of importance, but may be increased materially. So it is 
with this object in view that the department for several years has 
been endeavoring to obtain further authority from Congress to im- 
prove conditions and develop the industry. We admit that our work 
at times in the past has not been all that was required, but the reason 
for this lies in a lack of funds. We are happy to say that this diffi- 
culty now seems in a fair way to be overcome. To give the committee 
some idea of what the Bureau of Fisheries has expended in Alaska 
in the past 10 years, a statement has been prepared which I would 
like to put in the record at this point. This statement shows the 
expenditures by the Bureau of Fisheries on account of Alaska fish- 
eries for the fiscal years 1906 to 1915, inclusive. The amounts do not 
include expenditures for the protection of the fur seals or fur-bearing 
animals in Alaska. A recapitulation of this statement indicates that 
for fish culture, $325,000 has been expended; for the protection of 
fish, $140,000 ; for scientific investigation and statistical work, $1,500 ; 
and for investigations by the steamer AJbati'oss, $38,500. The work 
by the Albatross was largely of a scientific nature; at least, one or 
two of the trips. The total expenditures as shown by the statement 
are $508,961, or an average of more than $50,000 a year. 



62 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



The Chairman. That is from 1906? 

Mr. Bower. From 1906, continuing through 1915. The average 
expenditures are above $50,000 a year, although the expenditures in 
the earlier part of that decade were somewhat less. For example, 
in 1906, they were only $37,000 ; in 1907, $31,000. 

(The statement above referred to is as follows:) 

Statement of expenditures by Bureau of Fisheries on account of Alaska fisheries 
for fiscal years 1906 to 1915, inclusive. 1 

FISH-CULTURAL WORK. 



Year. 


Salaries. 


Miscellaneous 
expenses. 


Fish hatch- 
eries. 


Total. 


1906 






$25, 832. 66 
1,814.20 
27, 712. 38 
1,819.68 
1, 150. 46 
1,308.50 


$25, 832. 66 
24, 598. 98 


1907 


$5,582.34 
6, 696. 50 
12,019.50 
12, 660. 00 
12,014.83 
15, 787. 17 
15,544.75 
15, 204. 84 
15, 665. 67 


$17, 202. 44 
15,772.50 
14,943.52 
14, 504. 03 
16,050.17 
16,051.60 
15, 130. 77 
16,281.12 
18,375.35 


1908 


50,181.38 


1909 


38, 782. 70 
28,314.49 


1910 


1911 


29,373.50 


1912 


31,838.77 


1913 




30,675.52 
31, 4S5. 96 


1914 




1915 




34,041.02 










111, 175. 60 


144,311.50 


69, 637. 88 


325,124.98 



PROTECTION OF FISHERIES. 



Year. 


Salaries. 


Miscella- 
neous. 


Purchase 

of steamer 

Osprey. 


Total. 


1906 


$4, 500. 00 
4, 500. 00 
4, 500. 00 
4,500.00 
4, 500. 00 
6,300.00 
10, 076. 43 
11,043.82 
16, 218. 70 
14,908.34 


$1, 060. 00 
2,500.00 
2,500.00 
2, 500. 00 
2, 500. 00 
2, 722. 27 
4,035.02 
4, 367. 05 
9, 772. 72 

14,771.23 




$5,560.00 


1907 




7, 000. 00 


1908 




7, 000. 00 


1909 




7, 000. 00 


1910 




7, 000. 00 


1911 




9, 022. 27 


1912 




14,111.45 


1913 


$13, 000. 00 


28, 410. 87 


1914 


25,991.42 


1915 




29, 679. 57 










81,047.29 


46, 728. 29 


13, 000. 00 


140,775.58 



SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL INVESTIGATION. 



Year. 


Scientific. 


Statistical. 


Total. 


1907 


$353. 86 
307. 75 

59.75 
624. 40 

83.50 




$353.86 


1908 




307. 75 


1909 


$774.25 
1,001.99 


834.00 


1910 


1,626.39 


1911 


83.50 




620. 57 
738. 13 


620. 57 






738. 13 










1,429.26 


3, 134. 94 


4, 564. 20 



WORK BY STEAMER "ALBATROSS." 

Approximate cost. 

1906, investigation in Yes Bay $6, 000. 00 

1911, investigation of cod and halibut banks 17, 000. 00 

1912, investigation of cod and halibut banks 7, 500. 00 

1914, inspection tour, Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries - - - • 8 ; OCO- 00 

38,500.00 



i These amounts do not include any expenditures on account of protection of the fur seals or the fur- 
beir frg animals of Alaska. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



63 



statement of expenditures by Bureau of Fisheries on account of Alaska fisheries 
for fiscal years 1906 to 1915, inclusive — Continued. 

RECAPITULATION. 



Fiscal year. 


Fish 
culture. 


Protection. 


Investiga- 
tions, sci- 
entific and 
statistical. 


Investiga- 
tions, 
steamer 
Albatross. 


Total. 


1906 


$25, 832. 66 
24, 598. 98 
50,181.38 
38, 782. 70 
28,314.49 
29, 373. 50 
31,838.77 
30,675.52 
31,485.96 


$5,560.00 

7, 000. 00 

7,000.00 

7,000.00 

7, 000. 00 

9, 022. 27 

14,111.45 

28,410.87 

25,991.42 

29, 679. 57 




$6,000.00 


$37,392.66 


1907 


$353.86 

307. 75 

834.00 

1,626.39 

83.50 


31, 952. 84 


1908 




57,489.13 


1909 




46,616.70 


1910 




36, 940. 88 


1911 


17,000.00 
7, 500. 00 


55, 479. 27 


1912 


53,450.22 


1913 


620. 57 
738. 13 


59,706.96 


1914 


8,000.00 


66, 215. 51 


1915 

Total 


34,041.02 


63, 720. 59 








325, 124. 98 


140, 775. 5S 


4,564.20 


38,500.00 


508, 964. 76 



It has been said by some that the fishery has become depleted 
seriously, but the department does not regard such as the case, for 
it may be said that in the year 1916 the yield of fishery wealth by 
Alaskan waters was greater than ever before in the history of the 
business. It is true that in some isolated instances streams can be 
pointed out where the results of overfishing are obvious. Such 
being the case, it is only another reason why the bill now before us 
should be enacted into law, as by its provisions we will be enabled 
to reestablish the fishery by proper regulatory measures and by 
adequate fish-cultural aid in any of the local regions where the 
fishery may now be less productive than formerly. The adoption 
of this bill will provide funds for an increased personnel and addi- 
tional boats, will enable active scientific research, and will provide 
hatcheries which are much needed in some parts of Alaska that 
never have had the benefits of fish-cultural aid. So I hope and 
trust that it will be to the great credit of this Congress and notably 
of this honorable committee to write into the statutes the distinctly 
constructive piece of legislation now at hand. 

The bill is for the protection, regulation, and conservation of 
the fisheries of Alaska. It is a departmental measure, based upon 
the judgment and experience of officers of the department. In pre- 
paring the bill, we have had in view at all times the essential object 
of protecting and maintaining the fishery at its maximum of pro- 
ductivity, bearing in mind and having due regard for its effect upon 
other phases of industrial and civic development in Alaska not in- 
compatible with the main objects of the bill. We think it is a good 
and proper measure in all of its essentials, though in the course of 
the discussions and deliberations before this committee there may 
develop the necessity of modification in some of its details. 

I have had in mind at this point, Mr. Chairman, unless the com- 
mittee wishes otherwise, to take up the bill section by section and 
endeavor to explain what we are trying to accomplish and to indi- 
cate, among other things, the differences between the bill and the 
present law. If it meets with your approval, may I suggest that 
as each section is taken up it be printed in the record? 



64 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Section 1 is as follows: 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful to en- 
gage in the business of taking, catching, fishing for, canning, caring, preserv- 
ing, packing, or otherwise dealing at wholesale in food fish or shellfish, or other 
aquatic animals or the products thereof, in the Territory of Alaska or in any 
of the waters of Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction, without 
first obtaining license therefor as herein provided. Every person, except 
employees, engaged in the business of taking, catching, fishing for, canning, 
caring, preserving, packing, or otherwise dealing at wholesale in food fish 
or shellfish, or other aquatic animals or the products thereof, or manufactur- 
ing fisheries products, in the Territory of Alaska or in any of the waters of 
Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction, shall before commenc- 
ing operations apply for a license to the Secretary of Commerce, who shall 
issue the same, and every such person shall, in lieu of all other Federal or 
Territorial license fees and taxes therefor and thereon, pay annual license 
fees and taxes on said business and output as in this act provided. 

This introductory section has for its object the licensing of all 
persons who engage in fishery operations in Alaska, except em- 
ployees, such as laborers and others who are working for licensees, 
and excepting, further, retail dealers in fishery products. As noted 
elsewhere in the bill, exemptions are made from license requirements 
in favor of those who take fish for domestic consumption and not for 
commercial use. In the provisions of this first section, every person, 
with the exceptions just noted, must, before beginning fishing oper- 
ations, apply for a license to the Secretary of Commerce, who shall 
issue the same. 

(Thereupon, at 12.04 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2.30 
o'clock p. m.) 

AFTER RECESS. 

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess. 
STATEMENT OF MR. WARD T. BOWER— Continued. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bower, will you proceed with your state- 
ment ? 

Mr. Bower. This morning I made some introductory remarks re- 
garding section 1 of the bill (H. R. 9528). 

The great need of a license system as contemplated by this bill 
can not be controverted, because it is undoubtedly a well-recognized 
principle of all regulatory and protective measures of a govern- 
mental nature that a license system is essential and necessary to the 
proper and successful accomplishment of adequate control over the 
industry or line of business concerned. This has not been possible 
heretofore in Alaska for the reason that the license system originated 
by the terms of the act of March 3, 1899, simply necessitated the 
obtaining of licenses from the clerk of the district court, which was 
in effect to guarantee the payment of certain license fees upon the 
product of the business. This was by no means adequate. It covered 
only certain parts of the business and made no pretense of licensing 
fishermen, boats, and the various form of fishing appliances, the 
necessity for licensing which has been recognized and put into effect 
in various States. 

In fact, I believe it may be said that there is not a State in the 
Union boasting of a fishery of any consequence which does not have 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 65 

a license system covering these subjects. Therefore, you can at once 
see the urgency, I may say, of an adequate license system in Alaska, 
where the annual yield of the fishery products is valued in excess 
of one-quarter of the total value of the fishery products of the United 
States. 

The Chairman. That is. about $21,000,000 a year? 

Mr. Bower. That is. about $21,000,000. 

Mr. Hadley. Is that $21,000,000 one-fourth of the average annual 
output of the United States, or one-fourth the output of any one 
particular year? 

Mr. Boaver. That is the average annual output at the present rate; 
we have every reason to believe that it will increase. 

Mr. Hardy. From your statement some time back of the total 
amount of products obtained from the time Ave got the Territory in 
the sixties, Avhich you say Avas less than $300,000,000, until now, it 
would seem that it has been steadily increasing; and you think it has 
been increasing very much during recent years? 

Mr. Bo aver. Very much. Ten years ago the annual yield was 
valued at approximately $10,000,000. 

Mr. Hardy. And noAV it has reached about $21,000,000? 

Mr. Bower. More than $20,000,000 a year. The general license 
system proposed in this bill, as Avell as various other features of the 
measure, have been patterned and modeled very largely upon the 
recently revised codes of the States of Washington and Oregon. 
This has been deemed proper, for the reason that conditions in 
A^arious respects are quite similar in the salmon fishery of Alaska 
w T ith the same line of business in those States. That is particularly 
true of Washington. 

Mr. Eoave. Do you know anything about the laAvs in the British 
possessions there? 

Mr. Boaver. I have only a cursory knoAvledge of the laws of British 
Columbia. I knoAv that a license system is in vogue there, and various 
regulatory measures are in operation, which, I understand, are much 
more oppressive, if that term may be used properly, than any meas- 
ures in force in the States of Oregon and Washington. 

Noav, as to section 2 of the bill: This has to do with license fees 
and taxes, and I suggest that this section be inserted in the record 
at this point. 

The Chairman. Section 2 of the bill will be inserted in the record 
at this point. 

(The section referred to is as folloAvs:) 

Sec. 2. License fees and taxes. — That a license fee of $5 shall be imposed 
and paid for each canning, mild-curing, salting, smoking, fish freezing, whaling, 
or other wholesale fish-dealing establishment ; for each fish-fertilizer and fish-oil 
works, and for each other fishery establishment, except retail markets, not 
herein specified. 

For each pound net, ,$50; for each fish wheel, $25 (except small wheels in the 
Yukon and Copper Rivers of the type heretofore used, $2) ; for each purse seine, 
$25; for each beam trawl or other trawl net, $10; for each gill-net boat and 
equipment, $2 ; for each stake net, $2 ; for each set net, $1 ; for each drag, haul, 
or beach seine five hundred feet or less in length, $3, and for each additional 
five hundred feet in length or fraction thereof, $5 ; for any other kind of fishing 
appliance or method used in taking aquatic products, $1. 

Every licensee employing any fishing appliance or method hereinbefore men- 
tioned shall, by December thirty-first of each year, in addition to the license fees 
by this act provided, pay for the raw aquatic products taken by him as follows : 
For king, chinook, or spring salmon, and for steelhead trout or salmon, at the 



66 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

rate of $2 per thousand fish ; for red, sockeye, or bluebaek salmon, at the rate 
of $1 per thousand fish ; for red, sockeye, or bluebaek salmon, at the rate of $1 
per thousand fish ; for eoho or silver salmon and for chum or keta salmon, 
at the rate of 75 cents per thousand fish ; and for humpback or pink salmon, at 
the rate of 50 cents per thousand fish. 

Every person engaged in canning salmon or other food fish or shellfish shall, 
by December thirty-first of each year, pay a tax on the output as follows, ac- 
cording to species : King, chinook, or spring ; red, sockeye, or bluebaek ; coho or 
medium red ; and steelhead trout or salmon, 4 cents per case ; chum or keta, and 
humpback or pink, 3 cents per case ; all other food fish and shellfish, 3 cents per 
case. 

Every person engaged in curing or preserving fish or manufacturing fishery 
products, except by canning, shall, by December thirty-first of each year, pay a 
tax thereon as follows : Mild-cured salmon, 75 cents per tierce ; pickled salmon, 
15 cents per barrel ; salt salmon in bulk, 5 cents per hundred pounds ; salmon and 
trout frozen, iced, or otherwise preserved and not hereinbefore specified, 75 
cents per ton, round weight ; whale or fish oil, 10 cents per barrel ; fertilizer or 
meal made from whales, fish, or other aquatic products, 50 cents per ton ; salt 
cod, 50 cents per ton ; pickled herring, 10 cents per barrel ; salt herring in bulk 
or otherwise, 25 cents per ton ; all other products not hereinbefore specified, 25 
cents per ton. 

Nothing in this act shall require the issuance of a license for the taking of 
fish or other aquatic products for personal, domestic, or family use, and not 
for sale or barter, when not otherwise unlawful to take same, or for conducting 
retail trade in fish or fishery products. 

Mr. Bower. This section designates the license fees and taxes to be 
imposed upon the fishery. You will note that this section contem- 
plates five different groups of license fees and taxes, namely: First, 
license fees on plants ; second, license fees on fishing apparatus ; third, 
taxes on the raw product; fourth, taxes on canned product; and, 
fifth, taxes on the product prepared otherwise than by canning. 

First, taking up the license fees on plants, there is the fee of $5 per 
annum for every class of establishment except retail markets handling 
fishery products. It may at first thought appear strange that a 
uniform rate of $5 has been made upon all classes of fishery establish- 
ments irrespective of the amount of business done. It may be ex- 
plained, however, that this license is more for the purposes of record 
than as a revenue producer, and the fee of $5 is to cover the cost of 
issuing the license. It will be appreciated that it costs just as much 
to issue a license for a saltery doing a business of $10,000 a year as 
it does to issue one for a cannery doing ten times as great a business. 
Upon the basis of the operations in 1914 approximately 147 plants 
would have been licensed, yielding a return of $735 for that particular 
season. 

The Chairman. What paragraph is that? 

Mr. Hardy. The first paragraph of section 2. 

The Chairman. Providing a license fee on every plant ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes ; of $5. 

The Chairman. How much did you say it would amount to in the 
aggregate ? 

Mr. Bower. On the basis of operations in 1914, there would have 
been 147 licenses issued, and that would amount, at $5 each, to $735. 

The second group of items in this section is the license fees on fish- 
ing apparatus. The rates vary from $50 for each pound net to $1 
for a troller taking salmon or other fish for commercial purposes. 
The rates for the various classes of fishing gear mentioned have been 
graduated in a general way, in accordance with the efficiency of the 
appliance and the catch made by each form of gear. Two of the 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 67 

items listed — namely, fish wheels, except small wheels in the Yukon 
and Copper Rivers and beam trawls or other trawl nets — have not 
been used commercially heretofore in Alaska, but it has been deemed 
proper to incorporate them in this measure in anticipation of their 
use in the not far distant future. The rate specified for fish wheels 
is $25 per annum, except the small wheels in the Yukon and Copper 
Rivers of the type heretofore used, which small wheels are assessed 
at the rate of $2 per annum. This is for the purpose of making an 
exception in favor of the Indians who have developed and are using 
a small and rather primitive form of fish wheel on the two rivers I 
have named. The salmon caught in these small wheels are used 
chiefly by the natives for food and in barter with traders for other 
necessities of life. 

It will be noted that a rate of $2 has been made for each gill-net 
boat and equipment. It has been deemed more feasible to apply 
the license fee in this form rather than upon each gill net, for the 
reason that gill nets are small pieces of equipment, comparatively 
speaking, and a net often wears out before a season ends; and it 
therefore hardly seems equitable to enforce the payment of a tax upon 
another net which is used to replace the one worn out. As a rule, 
each gill-net boat fishes about two nets, each approximately 150 
fathoms long. These nets are set and taken up each day. While 
these nets are being fished it is customary to have an equal number of 
reserve nets which are being tanned or are being repaired. It does 
not seem appropriate to place a tax upon such reserve nets. In a 
former departmental bill (S. 5856), which was introduced in 1912, 
it was suggested that the tax on gill nets should be 1 cent per fathom 
per annum. Subsequently it was deemed better to apply a tax on 
each gill-net boat and its equipment. 

Another item in this group that it may, perhaps, be well to explain 
is the assessment of $3 on each haul or beach seine 500 feet or less in 
length, and $5 for each additional 500 feet or fraction thereof of 
such seine. The $3 rate made on seines under 500 feet in length is 
intended to cover some of the smaller seines used by Indians for 
commercial purposes. 

At this point, I may digress momentarily to say that at several places 
in this bill we have endeavored to make exceptions in favor of the 
Indians, as it is realized that in some regions they are entitled to more 
consideration than the whites. This is not necessary in some lines 
of the fisheiy, particularly in southeast Alaska, where nearly as many 
salmon are caught by Indians as by whites, the Indians almost with- 
out exception having as good boats and fishing gear as the whites; 
but elsewhere such exception in favor of the Indians seems proper. 
The chief form of fishing appliance used by the Indians in southeast 
Alaska is the purse seine, in the operation of which they are probably 
as expert as the white fishermen. Although the statistics show that 
the average annual catch of a pound net in Alaska is about 90,000 
salmon, while the average purse-seine catch is about 75,000, the license 
fee of $25 suggested for purse seines is only half the amount named 
for pound nets, it being thought that this lower rate on purse seins 
will redound more to the benefit of the Indians than of the whites. 

Stake nets and set nets are assessed at $2 and $1, respectively. 
These are in effect gill nets, in the one case affixed permanently upon 
stakes and in the other case temporarily by means of an anchor. The 



68 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

concluding part of this group specifies a fee of $1 for any other kind 
of fishing appliance or method not specifically mentioned. This will 
include chiefly those who engage in trolling for salmon or trout for 
commercial purposes. It does not contemplate any application to 
those who fish for sport. It will also cover crab pots and dip nets. 
It will not necessitate a license for sport fishing or angling, or the 
taking of fish or other aquatic products for personal, domestic, or 
family use, which exceptions are indicated by the concluding para- 
graph of the section under discussion. 

The amount of license fees on fishing appliances, as I have just 
outlined, if applied in 1914 would have produced $30,573. 

The Chairman. That is on fishing appliances? 

Mr. Bower. That is the amount devoted to fishing appliances. 

The Chairman. The amount produced would have been $30,573? 

Mr. Bower. $30,573 in 1914 ; it would have been somewhat larger in 
1915. But I am computing these figures on the basis of the year 
1914, because we have complete and final statistics for that year, and 
it is a good average year for our purposes. 

The third group under this section provides for a tax on the raw 
aquatic products in the salmon fishery. This is applicable to every 
licensee and is in addition to the other license fees contemplated 
by this measure. It is graduated, from the rate of $2 per thou- 
sand for chinook salmon and steelhead trout or salmon, down to 
50 cents per thousand for humpback or pink salmon, the interme- 
diate rates being $1 per thousand for red salmon and 75 cents per 
thousand for coho and chum salmon. 

This graduation of rates is chiefly in accordance with the rela- 
tive size of the several species of fish mentioned. For example, 
the humpback salmon averages about four pounds in weight, whereas 
the average weight of the king salmon is more than four times that of 
the humpback salmon, hence the rate on king salmon is more than 
four times that for humpback salmon.' In the same way, the aver- 
age size of red salmon is nearly twice that of humpback salmon, 
hence the rate is twice as much. In the case of coho and chum sal- 
mon, their average size is greater than that of the red salmon; but 
as the cohos and chum are much less valuable than the reds it has 
been deemed proper to make the proportionately lower tax rate on 
these two species of 75 cents per thousand. 

Now, it will be noted that every licensee, without exception, is 
is subject to this assessment upon his catch of salmon. This includes 
both the cannery operator and the independent fisherman. 

The object sought in applying this tax on the raw product is to 
distribute equitably and cause the independent fisherman to stand 
their just proportion of the tax. I think it was explained fully by 
Dr. Jones in his statement this morning. It will not relieve the 
cannery men of the payment of the tax on the salmon caught with 
the fishing gear owned by them, for the companies thus concerned 
will take out enough licenses to cover all the fishing gear they op- 
erate and will perforce pay the tax on the salmon caught by the 
gear so licensed. 

Another, and I may say very important reason, it seems to me 
for this license tax on the catch of salmon is that it marks a dis- 
tinct advance in fishery taxation, because it serves automatically 
to graduate the tax over and above the fixed license fee upon each 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 09 

^iece of fishing apparatus proportionate with its value to the 
licensee. Thus, for example, all pound nets pay an annual license 
fee of $50 each, but if one pound net catches 200,600 salmon in a 
season because of its favorable location and another less fortunately 
situated catches only 50,000 in the same period, the value of the 
first-named pound net is four times that of the latter. Undoubt- 
edly, if the two sites were put on the market, that difference would 
be apparent. 

Mr. Hadley. Assuming that that catch would continue the same 
from year to year? 

Mr. Bower. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Hadley. But the fact is that it may reverse itself in the 
succeeding year ? 

Mr. Bower. It may ; but this would be the average of the product 
of the two pieces of apparatus for a series of years. 

The Chairman. And you think that to make a flat rate and let 
that be the whole tax would be inequitable? 

Mr. Bower. That would be inequitable; yes, sir. So that, under 
this bill, the more successful net would properly pay four times as 
much license tax as the other one cited. The need of a graduated 
system along this line in the States of Oregon and Washington found 
expressicn in the grouping of nets in different classifications with 
varying rates of license fees. These States have also recently adopted 
the tax on the catch by each of such nets as advocated in the bill 
now before this committee. I may say that that is where we got 
the idea. We thought that inasmuch as after long experience in 
those States it was found proper to apply such a tax it would cer- 
tainly be found advantageous in Alaska. 

The Chairman. Before we get through I would like to have the 
laws of Oregon and Washington on the subject printed in the record, 
if they are not too long. 

Mr. Bower. I think it would be very desirable to incorporate most 
of those sections, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rowe. I think we ought to know what the taxes in Canada 
are, too. 

The Chairman. Yes; if we can get that information. 

Mr. Bower. It can be obtained in a few days. 

Mr. Rowe. Do you know where that information can be obtained, 
Mr. Hadley? 

Mr. Hadley. No; I do not. 

Mr. Bower/ It can be obtained at the Library of Congress. 

Mr. Greene. Do you not think we ought to insert those laws at 
the close of the record of to-day's hearing, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(The laws referred to will be found attached as an appendix 
to this day's hearing.) 

Mr. Hadley. I notice that the rate of taxation on the raw catch is 
50 per cent higher than in the present law ; thus the rate under this 
bill on the sockeyes is $1 a thousand 

Mr. Bower (interposing). $2 is the highest rate under this bill. 

4fi232— pt 2—16 3 



70 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



Mr. Hadley. And under the present law in Washington it is $1.50. 
For many years it was $1, but two years ago it was changed, and my 
recollection is that it was made $1.50. 

Mr. Bower. I have before me the rates now applicable in Washing- 
ton. 

The Chairman. I suggest that before we get through we will in- 
corporate the laws of Washington and Oregon; and that there also 
be incorporated in the record a table showing the rates in Oregon 
and the rates in Washington, as compared with the Alaska rates on 
similar classifications. I think that would be useful. 

Mr. Bower. I shall be very glad to prepare such a table for the 
committee. 

(The table referred to is as follows:) 

License taxes on fisheries in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. 

[All figures under canneries are per case, which in Oregon and Washington is defined to consist of 48 
1-pound cans or their equivalent. Figures under other headings are for a yearly license lee, except as 
otherwise indicated.] 



Alaska. 



Federal. 1 



Territo- 
rials 



Oregon.3 



Washington. 



Canneries: 

Salmon in general 

Kings, reds, sockeye 

Medium reds 

All other salmon 

Chinook, before Aug. 26. 

Chinook, after Aug. 26. . 



Steelhead, blueback, sockeye. 
All other salmon 



Clams, clam nectar, shad, shrimp, 

and other food and shell fish. 
Rogue River (salmon)— 

Before Aug. 26 

After Aug. 26 

District No. 2, except Rogue 
River (salmon). 
Cold-storage fish plants: 
Business of — 

$100,000 or over 

$75,000 to $100,000 

$50,000 to $75,000 

$25,000 to $50,000 

$10,000 to $25,000 

$4,000 to $10,000; 

Under $4,000 

Pickled salmon, etc.: 

Pickled salmon, per barrel 

Salt salmon in bulk, per 100 
pounds. 

Salt or mild-cured fish, except 
herring, per 100 pounds. 

Fish oil, per barrel 

Fertilizer, per ton 

Dealers, etc. 

Wholesalers, including persons 
freezing, salting, smoking, kip- 
pering, and preserving. 



Retail fish dealers. 



Dealers in food fish from private 
hatcheries. 6 

i Compiled Laws of Alaska, 1913, sees. 259, 2569. 

2 Laws 1915, c. 76, sec. 1. 

s Gen. Laws 1915, ch. 18S, sees. 8, 9. 



$0.04 (district No. 

1). 
$0.02 (district No. 

1). 

do 

$0.01 (district No. 

1). 
$0.01 



$0.04 (Columbia 

River). 
$0.02 (Columbia 

River). 
$0.02. 
$0.01. 

$0.01. 



$0.04 . . 
$0,025. 
$0,025. 



500 
375 
250 
125 
50 
25 
10 



.025 



10 a year and $1 a 
ton of salmon, 
shad, and stur- 
geon. 

5 a year and $1 
for each ton of 
salmon, shad, 
and sturgeon 
over 5 tons. 



110 a year and $1 a 
ton of salmon 
and other food 
fish.s 

51 a year. 



$2.50. 



* Laws 1915, ch. 31, sec. 51. 

5 Except personal catch and fish ultimately canned. 

e Laws 1915, ch. 31, sec. 93. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 71 

License taxes on fisheries in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington — Continued. 





Alaska. 


Oregon. 






Federal. 


Territo- 
rial. 


Washington. 


Private hatcheries • 








$25. 
$50. 

SI. 

$50 


Fish brokers not operating as 






$50.. 


packers or canners. 
Use of boats in buying or hand- 






SI 


ling fish. 
Use of boats on Columbia River 






$50 


for buying fish, except packers 
or canners paying S100 license 
to Washington and Oregon, per 
boat. 
Licenses to take crabs, etc. — 
Crabs 






$1 


SI. 


Clams and mussels 








Crawfish 






$1 




Oysters from State reserves 








$5 


for seed purposes. 
Appliances: 

Fish traps, fixed or floating, in- 




100 






cluding dummy traps. 
Fish traps or pound nets for 
taking salmon — 
Puget Sound — 

Double 






$100. 
$50. 

$'"5 


Single 








Columbia River and Oregon 
waters in general — 
First class (S1,000 catch 






$25 


or over) . 

Second class (less than 






$15 


$15 


81,000 catch). 
Willapa Harbor and 








$15 


Grays Harbor. 
Gill nets: 

General per 100 fathoms 




1 






Puget Sound (salmon) 








Oregon and Washington waters, 






$7.50 


cent for each ad- 
ditional 1 foot. 

$7 50 


except Puget Sound (salmon). 
Brush weir for taking smelt and her- 








$25 


ring. 
Stationary fish wheel (salmon) 






§35 


$35 


Scow fish wheel (salmon) 






825 


825 


Purse seine 






$25 (salmon) 

$3.70 

$0.03 (salmon); 
minimum, $15. 




Set bet (salmon) 






$3 75 


Drag seine, per foot 








Reef net 






$5. 
$1 


Bag net for taking smelt or herring 






$1 . 


Bag net for takinc salmon 






$1 




Smelt drag bag net on Puget Sound . . . 








$1 


Beam trawl 








$10 


Set lines for over 100 hooks 








$1 


Additional tax on account of catch: 2 
Chinook salmon, Columbia River, 
per 1,000— 
Before Aug. 26 






$5 


$5 


After Aug. 26 






$3 


$3 


Tyee, kine, black mouth, spring 






13 


$3 


and steelhead salmon, per 1,000. 
Chinook salmon (not in Columbia 








$3. 


River), per 1,000. 
Sockeye and blue back salmon 






$1.50 


$1.50. 


per 1,000. 






$1 


$1 


Humpback or pink salmon, per 








$0.50. 


1,000. 
Sturgeon, each 










Smelt, herring and shad, per 100 






$0.03. 


pounds. 
Shrimp, per 100 pounds 








$0.15. 



i Laws 1915, ch.31, s^c. 91. 

2 In Oregon, except by gill nets, set nets, dip nets and trolling lines; in Washington, except (a) by gill 
nets, and set nets and drag s:ines, in Puget Sound, Willapa Harbor, and Grays Harbor, (6) by gill nets' and 
set nets, in Columbia River. 



72 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

License taxes on fisheries in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington— Continued. 



Additional tax on account of catch- 
Continued. 

Crabs, per gross 

Clams, per ton 

Exemptions 



Alaska. 



Federal. 



C 1 ) 



Territo- 
rial. 



Oregon. 



SO. 10 

$0.75 

Clams, crabs, mus- 
sels, and craw- 
fish may b e 
taken for family- 
use without a 
license. 2 Civil 
War veterans 
are entitled to a 
fish license free. 3 



Washington. 



SO. 10. 

$0.75. 

Jiggers may be 
used for taking 
smelt or herring 
for family use 
without license. 
Crabs may be 
taken for family 
use without li- 
csnse. 4 



i Owners of private salmon hatcheries may can 10 cases of canned salmon for every 1,000 red or king salmon 
fry liberated. Compiled Laws of Alaska, 1913, sec. 260. 

2 Gen. Laws 1915, c'l. 1S8, sec. 10. 

3 Gen. Laws 1915, ch. 21. 

* Laws 1915, ch. 31, s;c. 101. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Bower. Objection has occurred to me that because of the vast 
distances to be covered and the fact that there will be many Indian 
fishermen to deal with, the collection of this raw product tax, or tax 
on the catch, will present a most difficult administrative problem. 
That has been suggested by one or two gentlemen here from South- 
east Alaska. But even so, I believe that the equitableness of the 
system more than overshadows and easily outweighs any such diffi- 
culties. 

On the basis of the catch of more than 54,000,000 salmon in 1914, 
the tax upon the raw product at these rates would amount to $44,936. 

Before passing this part of the bill. I may mention parenthetically 
that there are two typographical errors in line 7 on page 3. In order 
to make the proper corrections, a comma should be inserted after the 
word " king," and the word " Chinock " should be spelled " Chinook." 

The Chairman. That is, just a correction in the spelling of the 
word " Chinook " ? 

Mr. Bower. A change in the spelling of " Chinook " and a comma 
should also be inserted after the word " king." 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Bower. It is now my purpose to refer to the tax on the canned 
product, which is specified in the next part of the section. 

Mr. Hardy. Beginning with the fourteenth line on page 3? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. It will be noted that the rate named is 4 
cents per case for king, red, and coho salmon and for steelhead trout, 
while it is 3 cents per case on chum and humpback salmon and all 
other food fish and shellfish. 

Mr. Greece. The only objection I se^e to this is that it may add to 
the high cost of living; and the consumer must pay these taxes; it 
might put a lot of money in the Treasury ; but will it not add to the 
burdens of the consumer? 

Mr. Bower. It is not so regarded by those who are experienced in 
such matters. 

Mr. Hadlet. Before you go into this other classification, I would 
like to ask a question. You gave an estimate of the income based 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 73 

on the operations of the year 1914, as to appliances; but you have hot 
given an estimate on the income from licenses, have vou? Was that 
embodied in that estimate? 

Mr. Bower. It was stated as being $44,936. 

Mr. Hadley. Well, that I did not get. 

Mr. Bower. These different rates are made for the reason that the 
first-mentioned species bring a better price than those enumerated 
at the lower rate. Under the law as it now stands a flat rate of 4 
cents per case is made on all salmon, irrespective of species. This 
is not regarded as proper, because of the difference in the market 
price of the several species. In 1914, the average price of salmon per 
case of 48 1-pound cans was as follows: Chum, $3.37; humpback, 
$3.50; coho, $4.39; king, $5.01, and red, $5.58. The total production 
of canned salmon in 1914 was more than 4,000,000 cases, and the 
yield at the rates suggested in this bill would have been $145,764; 
that is the amount which would be raised under this group. 

The Chairman. How much? 

Mr. Bower. $145,764. This is about $15,000 less than the yield 
under the present law, but this shortage of $15,000 would be made 
up several times over by the license fees on fishing apparatus and 
the raw product provided for in this bill. 

The fifth and final taxation group covered in section 2 of this bill 
is the tax on the product prepared otherwise than by canning. A 
considerable part of this tax is in addition to the license fees now 
paid to the clerk of the court under the present law of June 26, 1906. 
This bill calls for a tax of 75 cents a tierce on mild-cured salmon, 
whereas the rate now paid is 40 cents. 

The Chairman. That is, on 800 pounds? 

Mr. Bower. That is, on 800 pounds. The rate on pickled salmon 
as 10 cents a barrel, whereas the new bill raises it to 15 cents. The 
tax on fertilizer as now 20 cents a ton, and by the provisions of the 
neAv measure it will be increased to 50 cents a ton. The rate on fish 
oil remains the same, namely, 10 cents per barrel. Several items at 
present not taxed are covered in this part of the bill, including whale 
oil, 10 cents per barrel ; frozen and iced salmon, 75 cents per ton ; 
pickled herring, 10 cents per barrel; dried salt herring and herring 
frozen for bait, 25 cents per ton ; halibut, frozen and fletched, 25 
cents per ton; and salted cod, 50 cents per ton. It will be noted that 
the tax is levied on prepared products and does not cover fresh fish — 
that is, the license tax referred to in this group of section 2 — though 
by the terms of the bill iced and frozen salmon and trout will be 
classified as prepared products. 

I have compiled a table showing the estimated amount of revenue 
which would be raised under the provisions of H. R. 9528, upon 
the basis of the Alaska fishery operations in 1914, which might be 
inserted in the record at this point, if you so wish, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Well, what was the tax on the prepared prod- 
ucts — estimated ? 

Mr. Bower. Prepared by canning, do you mean ? 

The Chairman. Otherwise than by canning. 

Mr. Bower. Otherwise than oy canning it is $13,532. 

Mr. Hadley. That is outside of the case pack? 

Mr. Bower. Yes ; outside of that. 



74 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. And I understand that the amount of the tax on 
the canned product would be $145,764. Very well; that may be 
inserted in the record. 

(The statement referred to is as follows:) 

Estimated amount of revenue which would be raised under the provisions of 
H. R. 9528, upon the basis of Alaska fishery operations in 191J,. 

License fees on plants : 
81 canneries. 
17 mild curing plants. 
15 salteries. 

6 freezing plants. 
17 cod stations. 

2 herring salteries. 

2 whaling stations. 

3 oil and fertilizer works. 

4 wholesale dealers (estimated). 

-147, at $5 $735 

License fees on fishing apparatus : 

252 pound nets, at $50 .$12, 600 

347 purse seines, at $25 8^ 675 

1,215 gill-net boats and equipment, at $2 2, 430 

300 stake nets, at $2 600 

300 set nets, at $1 300 

121 haul seines (average estimated length, 1.000 feet), 

at $8 968 

5,000 other fishing appliances, chiefly trolling lines, crab 

pots, whaling gear, at $1 5, 000 

30,573 

Tax on raw product : 

520,529 king salmon and 4,000 steelheads, at $2 per 

thousand fish '_ 1, 050 

29,833.978 red salmon, at $1 per thousand fish 29, 834 

1,344,666 coho salmon, at 75 cents per thousand- fish 1, 008 

6,272,612 cfmm salmon, at 75 cents per thousand fish 4, 704 

16,680,130 humpback salmon, at 50 cents per thousand fish_ 8, 340 

44, 936 

Tax on canned product : 

48, 039 cases of king salmon, at 4 cents per case 1, 921 

2, 201, 643 cases of red salmon, at 4 cents per case 88, 065 

157, 063 cases of coho salmon, at 4 cents per case 6, 282 

663, 859 cases of chum salmon, at 3 cents per case 19, 915 

986, 049 cases of humpback salmon, at 3 cents per case 29, 581 

4, 056, 653 145, 764 

25 cases of steelhead trout, at 4 cents per case 1 

100 cases of Dolly Varden trout, at 3 cents per case 3 

4 

Tax on product prepared otherwise than by canning : 

4,097 tierces of mild cured salmon, at 75 cents per tierce 3, 068 

26,362 barrels of pickled salmon, at 15 cents per barrel 3, 954 

11,400 pounds salt salmon in bulk, at 5 cent per hundred- 
weight . 5 

114 tons frozen salmon, at 75 cents per ton 85 

870 tons iced salmon, at 75 cent per ton 652 

15,903 barrels whale oil, at 10 cents per barrel 1, 590 

3,853 barrels fish oil, at 10 cents per barrel 385 

97 barrels fish by-products oil, at 10 cents per barrel 9 

963 tons fish fertilizer, at 50 cents per ton 481 

1,061 tons whale fertilizer, at 50 cents per ton 530 

38 tons fish by-products fertilizer, at 50 cents per ton 19 

116 tons fish by-products meal, at 50 cents per ton 58 

24 tons black cod, frozen and pickled, at 25 cents per ton 6 



ALASKA FISHERIES.. 75 

Tax oo product prepared otherwise than by canning — Con. 

4,4n.i barrels pickled herring, at LO cents per barrel $440 

313 tons dry salted herring, at 25 cents per ton 78 

66S tons herring frozen for bait, at 25 cents ton 167 

-.41 7 tons halibut, frozen and fletched.at 25 cents per ton_ 604 

2,803 tons salted cod, at 50 cents per ton 1,401 

$13,532 



Total 235,544 

Mr. Hinds. What is the total of that? 

Mr. Bower. The total amount is $235,511. This amount would 
be increased during the current year, for the reason that there has 
been a growth of fishery operations in Alaska. 

Mr. Britton. Does that statement show the detailed figures with 
regard to the tax for the year? 

Mr. Bower. It shows the detailed figures; it shows the total num- 
ber of pound nets operated in 1914. the total number of seines, and so 
on; every detail is worked out in the table. 

Mr. Brittox. How much did vou sav vour estimate was? 

The Chairman. $-235,541. 

Mr. Warren. And it is $30,573 for license fees on fishing appa- 
ratus ; that is included in that total. 

Mr. Bower. Under existing law, in the same period the amount 
raised would have been $167,000; but from that there would have 
been deducted the sum of approximately $25,000 for hatchery re- 
bates; that would have left a net cash return of $112,000 to the 
Territory. 

Mr. Hadley. You say you have estimated that there would have 
been an increase based on the operations for 1915 ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes; and I think it is safe to assume that under this 
bill we may expect the receipts to total $250,000 a year, because the 
industry we know increased in 1915, and in the year 1916 there will 
be a number of additional canneries operated. I think we can safely 
work on the basis of $250,000. 

The Chairman. Under existing law, does the entire revenue go 
to the Territory ? 

Mr. Bower. Under existing law the entire revenue on license fees 
outside of incorporated towns goes into the Alaska fund, and all of 
that money is expended by the Territory under the direction of Con- 
gress — 65 per cent for roads, 25 per cent for schools, and 15 per cent 
for care of indigents. 

Mr. Hadley. You do not mean that the money is expended under 
the direction of Congress, but that it is apportioned by Congress? 

Mr. Bower. It is apportioned by Congress. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; that is not quite what you intended to say. 
It is appropriated by Congress and is expended by various authori- 
ties. For instance, the road fund, the Alaska Koad Commission, 
which is a commission of military officers created by Congress, has 
the expenditure of that fund, although they expend it in Alaska. 
The school fund is expended under the direction of the governor for 
the support of certain classes of schools, and the indigent fund is 
expended by the judges of the district courts in Alaska for the pur- 
poses specified. 

Mr. Hardy. All of that is under an act passed about two years ago. 
is it not ? 



76 ALASKA FISHEKIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was longer ago than that. 

Mr. Hardy. I was on the Committee on Territories when we 
passed that law. 

The Chairman. Well, if you will permit me at this point, we will 
put that act in the record to show how the fund is appropriated and 
expended under existing law. 

This is the act of January 27, 1905 (33 Stat. L., p. 616, sec. 1). 
It provides — 

That all moneys derived from and collected for liquor licenses, occupa- 
tion or trade licenses, outside of incorporated towns in the District of 
Alaska shall be deposited in the Treasury Department of the United States, 
there to remain as a separate and distinct fund, to he known as the " Alaska 
fund," and to be wholly devoted to the purposes hereinafter stated, in the Dis- 
trict of Alaska : One-fourth of said fund, or so much thereof as may be neces- 
sary, shall be devoted to the establishment and maintenance of the public 
schools of said District ; five per centum of said fund shall be devoted to the care 
and maintenance of insane persons of said District, or so much of said five per 
centum as may be needed, and all the residue of said fund shall be devoted to 
the construction and maintenance of wagon roads, bridges, and trails. 

Mr. Wickersham. Of course, Mr. Chairman, that is the old law, 
and it has been very greatly amended ; and then there are other laws 
that connect with it ; and that is only a very small part of the original 
law. 

Mr. Bower. It has been amended as to the disposition of the 
amounts. It was amended by the act of May 11, 1906, and again by 
the act of February 6, 1909, and it was last amended by the act of 
March 3, 1913. 

The Chairman. We will incorporate those acts in the record of 
the hearings. 

(The acts referred to are as follows:) 

* * * That all moneys derived from and collected for liquor licenses, 
occupation or trade licenses, outside of the incorporated towns in the District 
of Alaska shall be deposited in the Treasury Department of the United States, 
there to remain as a separate and distinct fund, to be known as the "Alaska 
fund," and to be wholly devoted to the purposes hereinafter stated in the Dis- 
trict of Alaska. One- fourth of said fund, or so much thereof as may be neces- 
sary, shall be devoted to the establishment and maintenance of public schools 
in said District ; five percentum of said fund shall be devoted to the care and 
maintenance of insane persons in said District, or so much of said five per 
centum as may be needed ; and all the residue of said fund shall be devoted to 
the construction and maintenance of wagon roads, bridges, and trails in said 
District. (33 Stat. L„ p. 616.) 

Sec. 1. That all moneys derived from and collected for liquor licenses, occu- 
pation or trade licenses, outside of the incorporated towns in the District of 
Alaska shall be deposited in the Treasury Department of the United States, 
there to remain as a separate and distinct fund to be known as the "Alaska 
fund," and to be wholly devoted to the purposes hereinafter stated in the Dis- 
trict of Alaska. One-fourth of said fund, or so much thereof as may be neces- 
sary, shall be devoted to the establishment and maintenance of public schools 
in said District ; five per centum of said fund shall be devoted to the care and 
maintenance of insane persons in said district, or so much of said five per 
centum as may be needed ; and all the residue of said fund shall be devoted to 
the construction and maintenance of wagon roads, bridges, and trails in said 
District. (34 Stat. L., p. 192.) 

Sec. 7. * * ■ * So much of the act approved January twenty-seventh, nine- 
teen hundred and five, entitled "An act to provide for the construction and 
maintenance of roads, establishment and maintenance of schools, and care and 
support of insane persons in the District of Alaska, and for other purposes," as 
provides that five per centum of the license moneys collected outside of incor- 
porated towns in the District of Alaska shall be devoted to the care and main- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 77 

teiiance of such insane persons is hereby repealed, and such five per centum, 
or so much thereof as may lie necessary, shall hereafter be applied to and used 
for the establishment and maintenance of public schools in said district, under 
the supervision of the governor. (35 Stat. L., p. 601.) 

Sec. 1. That all moneys derived from and collected for liquor licenses, occu- 
pation or trade licenses, outside of the incorporated towns in the Territory of 
Alaska shall he deposited in the Treasury Department of the United States, 
there to remain as a separate and distinct fund, to he known as the "Alaska 
fund," and to he wholly devoted to the purposes hereinafter stated in the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska. Twenty-five per centum of said fund, or so much thereof as 
may he necessary, shall lie devoted to the establishment and maintenance of 
public schools in said Territory; ten per centum of said fund shall he, and is 
hereby, appropriated and authorized to he expended for the relief of persons 
in Alaska who are indigent and incapacitated through nonage, old age, sick- 
ness or accident ; and all the residue of said fund shall lie devoted to the con- 
struction and maintenance of wagon roads, bridges, and trails in said Terri- 
tory. * * * (37 Stat. L., p. 728.) 

Mr. Bower. Referring- to the point that I was trying to make a mo- 
ment ago, Alaska gets all of the "Alaska fund " money and it is ap- 
plied to purposes ether than fisheries ; the $142,000 in cash that Alaska 
was entitled to in 1914 went to other things than the support or aid of 
the fisheries. 

Mr. Hadley. And under the present bill 50 per cent of the receipts 
will go to these purposes of the Territory of Alaska, and the other 50 
per cent will be applied to the protection of this industry? 

Mr. Bower. That is the intention. 

The Chairman. It will result in a diminished revenue to the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska, outside of the amount expended for the fisheries. 

Mr. Hadley. But the income is somewhat greater as against that. 

The Chairman. Yes, 

Mr. Jones. $18,000. 

Mr. Rowe. It might not be, in another of the items. You see you 
are cutting off here the assessment and collection of taxes on the 
real estate, are you not? There must be some assessment on the real 
estate at the present time. 

Mr. "Y\ ickersham. No ; they have not yet done so. 

Mr. Rowe. Then that is all right. 

Mr. Bower. Section 3 provides as to the method of collecting 
licenses and taxes. May I suggest that this section be incorporated in 
the record? 

The Chairman. Yes ; that may be inserted in the record. 

(The section referred to is as follows :) 

Sec. 3. Licenses and taxes, how collected. — That all license fees and taxes 
Shall he payable to and collected by the Secretary of Commerce or his authorized 
agents, and all taxes if not paid when due shall become delinquent, and shall 
draw interest at the rate of one per centum per month until paid. And it shall 
be the duty of all United States district attorneys to enforce the payment of 
all delinquent taxes in their respective districts, and all property belonging to the 
delinquents shall he subject to execution and attachment therefor. 

You will notice that this section calls for the payment of license 
fees and taxes to the Secretary of Commerce or his authorized agents, 
and that taxes not paid when due shall become delinquent and draw 
interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month until paid. It is made 
the duty of United States attorneys to enforce the payment of de- 
linquent taxes. The property of delinquents is subject to execution 
and attachment for unpaid taxes. This section is designed to pro- 
vide the proper machinery for the collection of license fees and taxes 



78 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

and it is believed to be in as simple form as possible and have it 
safeguard the interests of the Government. 

The Chairman. Yes; you may proceed. 

Mr. Bower. Section 1 covers the disposition of license fees and 
taxes. It is as f oIIoavs : 

Sec. 4. Disposition or license fees and taxes. — That all the license fees 
and taxes derived from the fisheries of Alaska shall he covered into the Treas- 
ury of the United States, and fifty per centum thereof shall be transferred 
annually to the treasurer of the Territory of Alaska for such purposes as the 
Territorial Legislature of Alaska may direct. The remaining fifty per centum 
shall he placed in a fund to be known as the Alaska fisheries fund, which fund is 
hereby created, and the moneys in said fund shall be held subject to appro- 
priation from time to time by Congress for the construction, purchase, mainte- 
nance, and operation of fish hatcheries in Alaska and for other purposes relat- 
ing to the investigation, development, preservation, and conservation of the 
Alaska fisheries. 

This is one of the most important sections of the bill, as it contem- 
plates some distinct departures from existing law and will inaugu- 
rate new means of providing funds for the conduct of the depart- 
ment's work in Alaska. Inlhe first place, it will be noted that all 
the license fees and taxes derived from the fisheries of Alaska are 
to be covered into the Treasury of the United States, 50 per cent of 
which is to be turned over to the Territorial Government of Alaska, 
while the remaining 50 per cent is to create a new fund to be known 
as the Alaska fisheries fund, the moneys in which fund shall be ap- 
propriated from time to time by Congress for the conservation of 
the* Alaska fisheries and kindred projects. 

Now, as to the differences between this measure and the present 
law, attention is first invited to the fact that at present all moneys 
derived from the fisheries of Alaska, outside of incorporated towns, 
are, under the act of June 26, 1906. paid into the Alaska fund, which 
was created by the provisions of the act of January 27, 1905. These 
moneys, together with other funds derived from occupational or 
trade licenses, are by the act of March 3. 1913, applied as follows: 
Sixty-five per cent for roads, 25 per cent for schools, and 10 per cent 
for the care of indigents. It will be noted in particular that of the 
fishery licenses and fees paid under the fishery law of June 26, 1906, 
only that part collected outside of incorporated towns is paid into 
the Alaska fund. I think that point very often escapes the attention 
of many of us who consider the present statutes regarding Alaska. 

The Chairman. Will you repeat that statement? 

Mr. Bower." Only that part of the fees paid under the present law 
on the fisheries business outside of incorporated towns goes into the 
Alaska fund. This, however, represents most of the tax, as of the 
85 canneries operated in Alaska in 1915 only 5 were within incor- 
porated towns. This number will be increased by 2 or 3 new plants 
this year. 

Mr. Wickeksiiam. May I ask you where those five are ? 

Mr. Bower. Those five canneries that are now in incorporated 
towns? Two are at Ketchikan, one is at Petersburg, one at 
Wrangell, and one at Cordova. 

Mr.^WiCKERSHAM. Are any of them inside of the town limits? 

Mr. Bower. Well, I have always been of the impression that they 
are all within the corporate limits. 

Capt. Reynolds. I think those at Ketchikan are within the town 
limits ; the one at Cordova is strictly within the town limits. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 79 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, I am pretty well advised on the subject, 

and I do not think' any one of them is. 

Mr. Bower. And the one at Petersburg- is also; it is right in the 
heart of the town: the town seems to be building around it. 

Mr. Jones. The one at Ketchikan is right in the middle of the 
wharves, and the steamers land right by these canneries. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Jones, that is correct ; but, unfortunately, 
the town limits stop at the water line, and they are beyond the limits 
of the town. 

Mr. Jones. The water limit is away outside of the town. 

Mr. Bower. It seems to be true that at Ketchikan the canneries are 
within the incorporated limits, because Mr. Strong, from that town, 
who Avas here a few days ago, told me that they got back a part of 
the fishery license money. 

Mr. Wickersham. It might be true there. 

The Chairman. Mr. Strong is here. 

Mr. Bower. He is in town. 

The Chairman. Yes; he was here the first day of the hearings. 
There need not be any controversy about that, because it can b<j 
determined very easily if it is important. 

Mr. Bow x er. Continuing along this thought, I will say that the act 
of April 28, 1901, provided that all license moneys collected by the 
clerk of the district court for the fishery and various other occupa- 
tional industries carried on within the limits of an incorporated 
town should be paid by the clerk of the court to the treasurer of 
such town. The bill under consideration, providing, as it does, in the 
first line of section 4. that all license fees from the fisheries shall be 
covered into the Treasury of the United States, deprives the incor- 
porated towns of Alaska of certain revenues which they now receive, 
Perhaps some modification of this bill may be advisable so as to per- 
mit of the continuance of this practice. It could be accomplished 
easily by inserting a proviso in section 4 that all license fees derived 
from the fisheries outside incorporated towns should be covered into 
the Treasury of the United States, and that the taxes from fisheries 
within incorporated towns should be paid over to the treasurer of 
such town. It is believed that if this plan is adopted it should in- 
clude only the tax on canned product prepared within incorporated 
towns. This will amount to less than $8,000 per annum, as I compute 
it, for. as already mentioned, most of the canneries are outside the 
limits of incorporated towns. The laws wdiich have to do with fish- 
ery license taxes within incorporated towns are as follows : 

Sec. 460. * * * Fisheries: Salmon canneries, four cents per case; salmon 
salteries, ten cents per barrel: fish-oil works, ten cents per barrel; fertilizer 
works, twenty cents per ton. (Stats, at Large, vol. 30. p. 1336.) 

* * * That fifty per centum of all license moneys provided for by act of 
Congress approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, entitled 
"An act to define and punish crimes in the District of Alaska and to provide 
a code of criminal procedure for said District," and any amendments made 
thereto, required to be paid by any resident, person, or corporation for business 
carried on within said corporation, shall be paid over by the clerk of the United 
States district court receiving the same to the treasurer of said corporation 
upon taking bis receipt therefor in duplicate, one of which duplicate receipts 
shall lie forwarded to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States by the 
clerk as a voucher in lieu of cash, and the other receipt shall be retained by 
the clerk. The money received by the treasurer of the corporation from the 
clerk of the court for licenses shall be used, under the direction of the council, 



80 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

for school purposes: Provided, That where it is made to appear to the satis- 
faction of the district court that the whole amount heretofore or hereafter 
received by the treasurer of the corporation from the clerk of the court is not 
required for school purposes, the court may from time to time, by orders duly 
made and entered with a statement of the facts upon which they are based, 
authorize the expenditure of the accumulated surplus, or any part thereof, for 
any of the municipal purposes enumerated in this chapter. Fifty per centum of 
all license moneys provided for by said act of Congress approved March third, 
eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and any amendments made thereto, that 
may hereafter be paid for business carried on outside incorporated towns in 
the District of Alaska, and covered into the Treasury of the United States, 
shall be set aside to be expended, so far as may be deemed necessary by the 
Secretary of the Interior, within his discretion and under his direction, for 
school purposes outside incorporated towns in said District of Alaska. (Stats, 
at Large, vol 31, p. 1438.) 

* * * That all license moneys provided for by act of Congress approved 
March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, entitled "An act to define and 
punish crimes in the District of Alaska and to provide a code of criminal 
procedure for said District," and any amendments made thereto, required to be 
tfaid by any resident, person, or corporation for business carried on within the 
limits of any incorporated town, and collected by the clerk of the district court, 
shall be paid over by said clerk to the treasurer of such corporation, to be used 
for municipal and school purposes in such proportions as the court may order, 
but not more than fifty per centum nor less than twenty-five per centum thereof 
shall be used for school purposes, the remainder thereof to be paid to the treas- 
urer of the corporation for the support of the municipality, and the clerk of 
said court shall take said treasurer's receipt therefor, in triplicate, one of 
which receipts shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Treasury, another to 
the Attorney General, and the other shall be retained by the clerk: Provided, 
That fifty per centum of all license moneys provided for by said act of Congress 
approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and any amendments 
rnade thereto, that may hereafter be paid for business carried on outside incor- 
porated towns in the District of Alaska, shall be covered into the Treasury of 
the United States, and set aside to be expended, so far as may be deemed 
necessary by the Secretary of the Interior, within his discretion and under 
his direction, for school purposes outside incorporated towns in said District 
of Alaska. (Stats, at Large, vol. 32, p. 946.) 

Sec. 7. That all license moneys collected by the clerk of the district court 
from any person for any business, trade, or occupation carried on within the 
limits of any incorporated, town in the. District of Alaska, pursuant to the pro- 
visions of an act entitled " An act to define and punish crimes in the District 
of Alaska and to provide a code of criminal procedure for said District." ap- 
proved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and all acts or parts of 
hct< amendatory thereof, shall, by said clerk, be paid over to the treasurer of 
such town, to be used for school and municipal purposes within the town. The 
clerk shall take a receipt for such money in triplicate, one of which receipts 
shall be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury, one with the Attorney General 
of the L T nited States, and one shall be retained by the clerk. 

Sec. 8. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are, to the 
extent of such inconsistency, hereby repealed ; and the provisions of this act 
shall apply to and govern all municipal corporations heretofore created in the 
District of Alaska. (Stats, at Large, vol. 33, pp. 533-4.) 

Mr. Hardy. Let me suggest one thing: We have, I think, reserved 
the question of correcting section 21 of the bill, so as to give back, or 
not take away from the Territory, the right to levy an ad valorem 
tax on all these properties; and that correction with reference to 
canneries in cities and towns might be made in the same section, 
might it not ? 

Mr. Bower. Possibly it could be covered in that way. 

Mr. Hardy. I think you were not here when we talked about the 
effect of this bill, as to whether or not it was intended that these 
taxes should be in lieu of all other taxes, as the language of the bill 
makes it ; and it was understood that when we came to section 21 we 
\vould amend that section. That, at least, was my understanding. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 8\ 

The Chairman. That is, we said that we would consider the 
matter. 

Mr. Hardy. It was not finally decided, of course. 

The Chairman. No; it was just reserved for consideration. 

Mr. Hardy. But the correction you are talking about now can b$ 
incorporated in that section. 

The Chairman. Well, it could be done at this place very easily, 

Mr. Bower. It is not a serious matter, so far as the general situ- 
ation is concerned ; but it means a good deal to two or three of those 
struggling communities; that is, they are thriving, in a sense, but 
it occurs to me that it would be fair for them to have a little of the 
money. 

At the hearing a week ago to-day I think Mr. Wickersham said 
that the scheme of license fees and taxation contemplated in the 
present bill would disorganize utterly the fiscal affairs and policy 
of the Territory. I think he raised the point that the proposed meas- 
ure would abolish the Alaska fund. Now, this does not appear to be 
the case, because a reference to the act of March 3, 1899, and the acts 
amending that act, will indicate clearly that there are various other 
lines of business for which license fees are paid besides the fishery in- 
dustry. If the measure now before this committee should become a law, 
there would be a continuation of the license fees upon all these lines of 
business, the proceeds of which now go to the Alaska fund, excepting 
only the fisheries. Therefore it is difficult to see how the Alaska 
fund will be abolished. 

Mr. Wickersham. I based that upon my fear that the repealing 
clause of this bill would have that effect; not the provisions in the 
body of the bill. 

The Chairman. Well, that ought to be safeguarded so that it 
would not have that effect. 

Mr. Hadley. There ought to be a saving clause in the bill. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no saving clause in the bill. 

Mr. Bower. It would only repeal that part of the act of 1899 
respecting the fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, if that was the language of the provision, 
it could be easily understood. 

Mr. Bower. Taking up section 5 of the bill, relating to form of 
licenses and their renewal and transfer, the section reads as follows ; 

Sec. 5. Licenses, form, renewal, and transfer. — That all licenses and re- 
newals thereof for fishing appliances issued by the Secretary of Commerce 
shall be designated by consecutive numbers and shall indicate the kind of the 
particular appliance for which the license is issued and the name of the person 
owning the same. The owner or operator of each stationary fishing appliance 
shall have conspicuously affixed thereto a tag, brand, or lettered notice bearing 
the license number in black letters not less than six inches in height upon a 
white ground. For movable apparatus, a tag, brand, or notice showing the 
license number in figures at least six inches in height, either in dark figures 
(Hi a light ground or light figures on a dark ground, shall be placed on both 
sides of the bow of each boat or vessel used in operating same. All licenses 
shall expire on the thirty-first day of December of the calendar year in which 
issued. 

The failure to renew the license or to have made lawful application therefor 
for any pound net. fish wheel, or other fixed appliance in any of the waters of 
Alaska, by the first day of January of any year shall constitute abandonment 
of the location. Should the locator or owner neglect to construct and operate 
his appliance in a bona fide manner for the three consecutive years covered by 
his license, said location shall be deemed abandoned. 



82 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Any license may be assigned or transferred to any person entitled to hold a 
license under the provisions of this act, and notice shall be given of such trans- 
fer or assignment within ninety days from the date thereof to the Secretary 
of Commerce, who shall indorse the date of such notice on the license. If such 
notice is not given, the transfer shall be Void. 

This section provides that the licenses and renewals issued by 
the Secretary of Commerce shall be designated by consecutive 
numbers and shall indicate the kind of appliance and the name of 
the person owning it. Provision is made for displaying the license 
number upon fixed fishing gear, and in the case of movable apparatus 
the license number is to be shown on the boat used in the operation 
of such movable apparatus. Under a departmental regulation a 
notice must be affixed to each pound net, designating the owner 
thereof; but no provision is made for marking movable apparatus. 
This is improved in the present bill. 

This section also causes all licenses to expire on the 31st of De- 
cember of the calendar year in which issued. Failure to renew T the 
license or to have made application therefor for any fixed fishing 
appliance by the 1st day of January shall constitute abandonment 
of the location ; also, should the locator or owner neglect to construct 
and operate a fishing appliance in a bona fide manner for three con- 
secutive years the site shall be abandoned. This section authorizes 
the assignment or transfer of any license. Notice of such transfer 
must be given to the Secretary of Commerce within 90 days from the 
date thereof. If notice is not given, the transfer shall be void. 

In line 11, on page 6, the word " the " should be omitted, as the 
phrase as it now stands, " the three consecutive years covered by his 
license," implies that a license may be operative for three years, 
whereas by omitting this word such doubt as to meaning is remove'd. 
The idea is that a licensee may have the right to take out a license 
for a site to operate a fixed fishing appliance for three consecutive 
years, and that if in such period he does not make use of the site 
it shall be deemed abandoned and is open to some other person. 

The Chairman. That is, for three consecutive years in annual 
periods ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes. 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Chairman, I think the word " the " there is all 
right, because the failure to renew the license from year to year by 
the language above operates to cause an abandonment of the location. 

The Chairman. But his license only runs for a year at a time. 

Mr. Britton. His license only runs for a year at a time, and if 
he does not renew his license then his location is abandoned by that 
fact alone. But he can continue his license from year to year; but 
he can not continue the location unless he operates it within the 
three-year period. You see, he can not keep his location from year to 
year without getting a license for it ; but he can get a license without 
operating it. 

Mr. Bower. We thought, after careful consideration, that it would 
remove possible ambiguity there to omit the word " the." The same 
thing occurs later on in the bill. 

Mr. Hardy. I think we ought to strike out the word " the " and 
then strike out the words " covered by his license." 

Mr. Bower. No, sir; only omit the word "the" in line 11; just 
the one word to be stricken out. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 83 

Mr. Hardy. But the intention is not to allow him to leave or 
abandon it for three years, whether he has a license or not? 

Mr. Bower. Three years is to be the limit. 

Mr. Hardy. Then why put in the words " covered by his license "? 
If he abandons it for three years, he forfeits it; then why not strike 
out the words " covered by his license " and simply provide that if 
he does not operate it " for three successive years, said location shall 
be deemed abandoned " ? 

Mr. Britton. That might be construed as allowing him to hold it 
for three years without a license; the purpose is to require him to 
take out a license every year. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, that is in another part 

Mr. Britton (interposing). It is in the same section. 

Mr. Hardy. In another part of the same section that is provided 
for. I think that omission of those words would make it more 
definite. 

Mr. Bower. If a site is declared to be abandoned at the end of 
three years of nonoperation, some other person would have an oppor- 
tunity to go in and make use of it. On Puget Sound it is necessary to 
use a site only once in four years. This is on account of the quad- 
riennial run of sockeye salmon in those waters, and it is not deemed 
proper to force the holder of a site to operate it when the run of 
salmon is not so large, or is not profitable. There appears to be no 
well-defined quadriennial run of salmon in Alaska, but the biennial 
run of humpback salmon is quite well established. 

Another point in the matter of allowing the licensee of a pound-net 
site to hold it for a term of three years and operate it only one out of 
the three years is that it is favorable to less intensive fishing than 
would be the case were it necesary to operate every year. Under the 
arrangement proposed in this bill, a pound-not site may remain idle 
two years, be fished the third, remain idle again two years, and be 
fished again. This seems better than to force a lecensee to fish a 
site every year in order to hold it, 

Mr. Hadley. It also protects an individual who may be in strait- 
ened circumstances ; some of these fishermen may not be able to fish 
it every year ; they may not be in a financial position to do so. 

Mr. Bower. He simply takes out the license for his location each 
year, and he is able to resume fishing if it is within the three-year 
limit. 

Mr. Hadley. I have known of such cases. 

Mr. Bower. Section 6 reads as follows : 

Sec. 6. Fixed net locations. — That any person occupying, or desiring to 
pccupy, any location where it may be lawful to construct a pound net in the 
waters of Alaska, shall cause such location to be accurately surveyed by a com- 
petent engineer, unless a survey thereof has already been made, in which event 
tmch existing survey may lie used, and shall cause three maps to be made of 
such location from the actual survey thereof, which shall contain a plat and 
description of said fishing location sufficient for its ascertainment and identifica- 
tion on the premises. Said maps shall also contain a certificate by the claimant, 
or by his agent or attorney, stating that he claims the fishing location shown 
thereon, specifying the date and number of the license under which the same is 
held, or the fact that application has been made therefor. Such maps, with the 
certificates thereon, shall be filed in the office of the commissioner of records in 
the district wherein the location is situated, which commissioner shall indorse 
thereon the hour and date of tiling, and shall forward one of these maps to the 
Secretary of Commerce and another to the Pacific coast office of the Bureau of 



84 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Fisheries. From and after the date of filing in the office of the commissioner 
of records, such map shall constitute full and complete notice that the locator 
has complied with all the provisions of this act and that such location is owned, 
held, occupied, and claimed by the person designated thereon as the claimant. 
From and after the filing of such map the claimant of the fishing location shown 
theroon, his heirs, administrators, executors, successors, and assigns shall have 
the exclusive right to hold, occupy, and fish in such location, to renew the 
license therefor, and to mortgage, sell, and transfer the same during the time 
that he or they in other respects shall comply with the law pertaining thereto : 
Provided, That it shall not be necessary to file any map or plat of any fishing 
location before January first of the calendar year next after this act takes effect. 

It shall not be necessary to file any map or plat of any fishing location in any 
case where any map or plat has heretofore been filed with the Secretary of 
Commerce and a commissioner of records in the district in which the location is 
situated. All pound net or other, fishing locations lawfully occupied during the 
calendar year next pit ceding the passage of this act shall continue valid : 
Provided, That if any owner or locator shall fail to construct and operate his 
appliance in i bona fide manner for the three consecutive years covered by his 
license, the location shall be deemed abandoned. 

Each commissioner of records and the Secretary of Commerce shall keep an 
index of ad such maps, showing the hour and date of filing, the names of 
claimants and serial number of the maps or plats, in the order filed, all of 
which shall be indorsed on them when filed. 

Locations for set nets may be made by erecting a permanent monument near, 
or securely anchoring a buoy on the location claimed, upon which shall be 
posted the number of the license under which such net is operated. 

Locations for stake nets may be made by erecting a permanent monument 
near or driving a pile on the location claimed, upon which shall be posted the 
number of the license under which each stake net is operated. 

This act shall not affect the use or operation of any fixed fishing appliance in 
r location regarded as lawfully occupied during the calendar year next preced- 
ing the passage of this act, and any and all fishing appliances my be maintained 
upon such location as though this act had not been passed, or they may be 
changed to conform to the provisions hereof as to passageways, at the option of 
the claimant, owner, or holder thereof. 

This is an important section of the bill, for the reason that it pro- 
vides a means for the establishment of a definite claim to sites for 
pound nets or other fixed fishing appliances. This matter is not 
covered in the present fishery laws. As far as the present statute is 
concerned, the only definite claim which the owner of a pound net 
has on his site is that of a possessory right enjoyed under common 
law. The need of further legislation along this line would there- 
fore seem most obvious. 

This section provides that any person occupying or desiring to 
occupy a location for a pound net must cause such location to be sur- 
veyed, unless a proper survey already exists. Three maps of such 
survey must be filed by the claimant, containing a certificate that 
the location shown thereon is claimed and is held under a license, or 
that application for a license has been made therefor. These maps 
are to be filed with the commissioner of records in the district wherein 
the location is situated, which officer shall indorse thereon the hour 
and date of filing, and he shall then forward one copy to the Secre- 
tary of Commerce and another to the Pacific coast office of the 
Bureau of Fisheries, the third copy being retained for his files. The 
filing of these maps in the office of the commissioner of records con- 
stitutes full notice after the date of such filing that the location is 
owned, held, occupied, and claimed by the person designated thereon 
as claimant. Also, from and after the time of filing such maps the 
claimant or his assigns has the right to occupy the site, to transfer 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 85 

it. and renew the license, so long as lie shall comply with the other 
requirements of law pertaining thereto. 

A proviso is incorporated that it shall not be necessary to file any 
map of any fishing location before January 1 of the calendar year 
next after this act takes effect. This is for the purpose of giving 
ample time to those who may be in remote and inaccessible places 
to obtain surveyors to prepare proper maps of their locations. It 
will be remembered that the season in certain parts of Alaska is very 
short and transportation facilities are not good. It will not be neces- 
sary to file any map where one has already been filed with the Sec- 
retary of Commerce and the commissioner of records. 

Mr. Wickersham. Right there let me ask you a question. Have 
any been filed? 

Mr. Bower. A few maps have been filed with the department. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many have been filed with the depart- 
ment I 

Mr. Bower. I should estimate that perhaps a total of 50 pound- 
net surveys have been filed with the department. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is what we know as trap sites? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. When were they filed, Mr. Bower? 

Mr. Bower. I think the first of them reached the department about 
two } T ears ago, and some have been received recently. 

Mr. Wickersham. Will you make a list of those, showing the 
dates when they Avere filed and file it with the committee? 

Mr. Bower. I shall be glad to do so if the committee wishes. 

The Chairman. Yes; I think it would be very well to do that. 

Mr. Hadley. This section is substantially a copy of the Washington 
law. is it not ? 

Mr. Bower. It is patterned very closely on the Washington law. 

Mr. Hadley. I have not examined it lately, but I remember it well, 
and it seems to be identical, except so far as it is made applicable 
to the Secretary of Commerce and the commissioner of records. 

Mr. Bower. We have been so favorably impressed by the Wash- 
ington law that much of it has been written into this bill. 

Mr. Hadley. I might say that that law was passed in Washington 
in 1905. as I remember it, and it remains now substantially as it was 
then. 

The Chairman. It has been in operation there long enough to 
show whether it is an equitable and workable law, has it not ? 

Mr. Hadley. Yes; I speak from memory, but I think it was enacted 
in 1905. 

Mr. Bower. The recent code of the State of Washington does not 
contain many changes from the original act. 

Mr. Hadley. As I understand the history of it. it is the original 
act. so far as that section is concerned. 

Mr. Bower. This section also provides that pound-net or other 
fishing locations lawfully occupied during the calendar year next 
preceding the passage of this act are to continue valid, provided that 
such site shall be deemed abandoned if the owner or locator fails to 
construct and operate a fishing appliance for three consecutive years 
covered by his license. 
46232— pt 2— 1G 4 



86 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

I invite your attention to the word "the," in line 14, on page 8, 
which should be omitted for the same reasons that I mentioned a 
short time ago in regard to the use of the same word in line 11, on 
page 6. 

This bill will not be retroactive to the extent of causing the re- 
moval of fixed fishing appliances lawfully placed in the calendar 
year preceding the passage of this bill. This refers particularly to 
the distance intervals between pound nets, which by the terms of 
the bill now under consideration are greater than under existing 
law. It does not seem fair or just to cause the removal of some of 
these traps when they have been established and operated in good 
faith. The additional limitations and restrictions of this bill are 
intended more especially to safeguard the future of the fisheries. 

The Chairman. In other words, if those pound nets now are 
located a less distance apart than provided for in section 7 of this 
bill they will not be compelled to relocate them ? 

Mr. Bower. They will not be disturbed. 

Mr. Rowe. You mean for one year? 

Mr. Bower. No ; they will be allowed to continue as they are under 
the present law ; but after the new law goes into effect, then all new 
pound-net sites or sites for fixed appliances must be in accordance 
with the provisions of this bill. 

Mr. Hadley. What are the limits, lateral or otherwise, under the 
provisions, and what are they under the present law ? 

Mr. Bower. Under the present law the lateral distance interval 
between pound nets is 1,800 feet, and under this bill the distance is 
2,400 feet. This distance of 2,400 feet is the same as that provided 
in the State of Washington. 

Mr. Hadley. Is the end-passage provision the same? 

Mr. Bower. The end-passage provision is 300 feet under existing 
law and 600 feet under this bill. I will treat of that when I come 
to discuss section 7. 

This section 6 also specifies a means for obtaining locations for set 
nets by erecting a monument or anchoring a buoy near the place 
claimed, and locations for stake nets may be made by driving a pile 
on the location on which the license number shall be posted. 

I suggest that section 7 be inserted at this point. 

(The section referred to is as follows:) 

Sec. 7. Nets, how consteucted. — That no lead of any pound net in the 
Territory of Alaska shall exceed three thousand feet in length, and there shall 
be an end passageway of at least six hundred feet and a lateral passageway of 
at least two thousand four hundred feet between all pound nets. The lead of 
any pound net may be extended to high-water mark on the tidelands owned by 
the United States or on other tidelands with the consent of the owners thereof. 

No supplementary wing or jigger shall be of greater length than three 
hundred feet measured over all, nor shall the outer end thereof approach 
within one hundred feet of the lead of any pound net. Not more than one 
wing or jigger shall be attached to either side of the heart of any pound net. 

No stake net shall be constructed in any other manner than by stakes driven 
in substantially a straight line. No stake net shall be in the form of a pound 
net or with hearts or pots connected therewith, and it shall be unlawful to erect 
or maintain any stake net of greater length than one thousand feet or within 
one thousand feet laterally or three hundred feet endwise of any other stake 
net : Provided, That the restrictions as to distance intervals between stake nets 
shall not be construed to apply to the use by the native Indians of stake nets 
not over fifty yards in length to take salmon for domestic consumption and not 
for sale. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 87 

All set nets shall have a lateral passageway of at least three hundred feet 
and aii end passageway of at least one hundred feet. A set net is aot a fixed 
appliance within the meaning of this act. 

For tin 1 purpose of determining passageways base lines shall he drawn at 
right angles to the general course of locations and shall pass through the ends 
of the locations; the end passageways shall he measured at right angles to 
such base lines, and the lateral passageways shall be measured parallel with 
.such base lines. 

It shall be unlawful to lay or cast any movable fishing appliance within 
three hundred yards of any other movable fishing- appliance or within the 
distances of lateral and end passageways prescribed in this section: Provided, 
That the restrictions of this section shall not apply to drift gill nets. 

It shall be unlawful to erect or maintain any stake net or set net within 
the distances of any of the lateral and end passages as prescribed in this act. 

No purse seine shall exceed one thousand eight hundred feet in length, and 
no lead or supplementary piece of net shall be used in connection therewith. 

No gill net shall exceed two thousand five hundred feet in length, and no 
beach seine shall exceed three thousand feet in length. 

Important features of this section are that it limits the length of 
the lead of pound nets to 3,000 feet, a point not covered in the ex- 
isting law, and also provides an end passageway of 600 feet and a 
lateral passageway of 2,400 feet. This is an increase over the present 
law of 300 feet in the end passageway and 600 feet in the lateral pas- 
sageway. The lead of a pound net may be extended to high-water 
mark. Xo supplementary wing or jigger is permitted of a greater 
length than 300 feet, nor is the outer end of such jigger permitted 
to approach within 100 feet of the lead of any pound net. Only one 
jigger may be attached to each side of the heart of any pound net. 

It also provides that stake nets shall not be constructed in any other 
manner than by stakes driven in substantially a straight line, and no 
stake net is to be in the form of a pound net. This is to prevent the 
adaptation of a stake net to the form of a pound net so as to have 
the advantage of the better catch afforded by a pound net and pay 
only the license fee for a stake net. 

The Chairman. Well, I suppose you gentlemen who are fishermen 
know just what kind of nets those are. 

Mr. Hadley. I think it would be well to have somebody describe 
them for the record. 

The Chairman. A pound net I understand ; but that is only one of 
the many referred to. 

Mr. Bower. A stake net is a gill net fixed to stakes. A set net is 
a gill net also, but is of a more mobile character and may be held in 
place by an anchor or buoy. 

The Chairman. We can take that up later. 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. Stake nets are limited by this section to a 
length of 1,000 feet, and must be at least 1.000 feet apart laterally 
and 300 feet endwise, provided that the distance intervals shall not 
apply to small nets not over 50 yards in length used by Indians to 
take fish for their own consumption. 

Set nets, which are still less effective in the matter of taking 
salmon, are to be 300 feet apart laterally and at least 100 feet apart 
endwise. A set net is not regarded as a fixed appliance. 

Other features of this section are means of determining passage- 
ways, the limitation of purse seines to a length of 1,800 feet and 
limiting the length of gill nets to 2.500 feet. All these features are 
new to the present law. There are a few other less important fea- 
tures of this section which I have not mentioned specifically. 



88 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. I see that Mr. Strong is present now. There was 
a question raised a while ago as to whether or not the canneries at 
Ketchikan, Alaska, are within the corporate limits of the town. 

Mr. Strong. They are; I think there are four now. 

Mr. Bower. Two of them are new this year? 

Mr. Strong. Yes. 

Mr. Bower. And two were built before 1914? 

Mr. Strong. Yes. 

The Chairman. But they are all in the corporate limits ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes; right in the center of the town. One of them 
is pretty well to the southern part, but it is a quarter of a mile inside 
of the corporate limits of the town. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, formerly the corporate limit was on the 
line of high tide ; when was that changed ? 

Mr. Strong. That is true; but I think they considered the can- 
neries as within the town, just the same. In fact, the buildings 
were extended back over the uplands; what I mean is that they 
were not eliminated from the boundaries of the town. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, I know there was a good deal of trouble 
there at one time by reason of the fact that a good deal of the town, 
especially over by the wharves, was between the high tide and the 
corporate limits of the town. 

Mr. Strong. That is true. 

Mr. Wickersham. Has that been eliminated by extending the 
town lines ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes; that was done by extending the town limits, 
about a year ago. 

Mr. Wickersham. By extending the town limits ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Bower. 

Mr. Bower. The next is section 8, which is as follows : 

Sec. 8. Pound nets, how closed. — That throughout the weekly close season 
prescribed by lav,-, each pound net shall lie closed by an apron placed across 
the outer entrance to the heart thereof, which apron shall extend from above 
the surface of the water to the bottom, and shall be securely connected to the 
piles on either side of the heart of such pound net, fastened by rings not more 
than two feet apart on taut wires stretched from the top to the bottom of the 
piles. In addition, throughout said weekly close season, there shall be a 
V-shaped opening in the lead of such pound nets outside the entrance to the 
heart adjacent to the apron of at least ten feet in width at the top and extend- 
ing below the surface at least four feet below low water. 

This provides a method of closing pound nets during the weekly 
close season specified later in the bill. Under the present law it is 
required that 20 feet of the heart on each side next to the pot must 
be lifted or lowered so as to permit of the free passage of salmon or 
other fish, and it is also required that the mouth of the tunnel must 
be closed. It has been found almost a physical impossibility to 
comply with the terms of the present law — that is, at least at times 
it has been impossible — where the weather conditions have made it 
almost out of the question to close a pound net literally in accordance 
with the terms of existing law. The bill now at hand requires the 
closing of each pound net by means of an apron across the entrance 
to the heart. In addition a small opening is required in the lead 
next to the heart. This is regarded by practical fishermen and by 
the department as a much simpler method of closing a pound net to 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 89 

permit the free passage of fish during the weekly close period than 
is the case under the present law. 

The Chairman. That is, out of the catching season? 

Mr. Bower. Yes ; it lets them go— it does not catch them. 

Section 9 reads as follows : 

Sec. 9. Where unlawful to fish. — That it shall he unlawful t<> take salmon 
by any means whatsoever, except with hook and line, commonly called angling, 
and except for the purposes of fish culture or scientific investigation under the 
direction or with the approval of the .Secretary of Commerce, in any waters 
where the distance from shore to short is less than three hundred feet, or 
with any fixed appliance in any waters where the distance from shore to shore 
is less than five hundred feet, or by any means except with hook and line within 
five hundred yards outside the mouth of any river less than five hundred feet 
in width at its mouth : Provided, That the use of stake nets shall be allowed 
in the deltas of the Yukon, Cooper, Alseck, Setuck, and Ahrnklin Rivers and on 
the flats and in the divides between the Setuck and Ahrnklin, and that movable 
appliances shall be allowed to within one hundred yards outside of the mouths 
of the before-mentioned rivers and of the Karluk River. For the purposes of 
this paragraph, the width of a river shall be determined by measurements at 
right angles to the trend of said waters at mean high water, and all measure- 
ments of water referred to herein shall be made at mean high water, and the 
Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized to determine and indicate by suit- 
able markers, monuments, or notices the mouth of any river, or other waters 
referred to herein. It shall be unlawful to efface, destroy, or remove, or in any 
manner interfere with any marker, monument, or notice provided for in this act. 

No fishing appliance shall be operated in any river, lagoon, estuary, or other 
waters for a greater distance than one-third the width of the waters thereof : 
Provided, That this shall not apply to any drift gill net which by force of the 
elements may unavoidably and temporarily exceed such distance. 

A very important feature of this section is that it prohibits abso- 
lutely all fishing except angling or except for fish culture or scientific 
investigation in any waters where the distance from shore to shore is 
less than 300 feet. This is a distinct departure from the present law, 
as it is now permissible to operate movable appliances in streams less 
than 300 feet in width, or of any width provided the net so Used does 
not extend more than one-third the distance ? cross the stream. 
Fixed appliances are prohibited in waters where the distance from 
shore to shore is less than 500 feet. This is the same as in the present 
law. 

All fishing, whether with fixed or movable apparatus, except with 
hook and line, is prohibited by this bill within 500 yards of any (I 
want to emphasize that word "anj 7- ") river less than 500 feet in 
width at its mouth. This differs from the present law, in that fishing 
is now prohibited with fixed appliances within 500 yards and with 
movable appliances within 100 yards of the mouth of only those 
streams which are red-salmon streams. There are now no such re- 
strictions for streams which are not red-salmon streams. The result 
is that many of them which need protection are overfished. The 
necessity for this particular proA-isicn is at once apparent when it 
is realized that the habits of salmon are such that they very often 
school off the mouths before ascending the streams to spawn. It is 
during this period of loitering about the stream mouths that they 
fall easy prey to the purse-seine fishermen. Fish that have passed 
the nets in outer waters and have come so close to the spawning 
grounds should be allowed to pass by unmolested. The limitations 
for movable appliances in regard to keeping away from stream 
mouths are not operative, by the terms of this bill, where the stream 
is more than 500 feet in width at its mouth. 



90 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Let me explain further the prohibition in this bill of all fishing 
within streams less than 300 feet in width. If this were applied to 
all waters it would work a great hardship on certain canneries which 
are almost wholly dependent upon streams less than 300 feet in width 
for their pack of salmon; therefore a proviso has been incorporated 
in the bill that the use of stake nets shall be allowed in certain 
waters, including the deltas of the Copper, Alseck, Setuck, and other 
rivers. There is one other exception in the bill which will permit 
of the use of movable appliances to within 100 yards outside the 
mouth of those rivers and of the Karluk River. These exceptions 
are necessary, unless the Government wishes to enact legislation 
which will practically confiscate the business of a few canneries 
which were established in good faith under the terms of existing law. 
I can not believe that it would be the desire of Congress to apply any 
such drastic measure; and, moreover, such action does not seem nec- 
essary in order to protect the fishery industry of Alaska. 

Mr. Hadley. Let me ask you this question: Has the department 
information as to the per cent of salmon spawned under existing 
law, notwithstanding the existing conditions at the mouths of these 
small streams? 

Mr. Bower. We know that some of the streams are overfished ; and 
we are aware of the fact that purse-seine fishermen very often work 
into and up above the mouths of streams and fish down, taking the 
fish from the spawning grounds. 

Mr. Hadley. I want to know whether the fish do. as a matter of 
fact, go up the small streams last referred to to spawn in large quan- 
tities? 

Mr. Bower. They do ; yes, sir ; particularly the humpback salmon. 

Section 9 also provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall indi- 
cate by suitable markers the mouth of every river, and makes it un- 
lawful to destroy or remove any marker or monument provided for 
in the bill. 

It is also stipulated in the bill that no fishing appliance shall be 
operated in any waters for a distance greater than one-third the 
width thereof, provided that this shall not apply to drift gill nets 
which may temporarily exceed such distances. This exception seems 
proper for the reason that drift gill-net fishermen can not control the 
movements of their nets while they are in fishing position. 

I suggest that section 10 be inserted at this point. 

(The section referred to is as follows) : 

Sec. 10. Weekly close period. — That it shall lie unlawful to take, fish for, or 
kill any salmon of any species in any manner or by any means whatsoever, ex- 
cept by hook and line solely in angling for sport and not for commercial use, 
in any of the waters of Alaska, except in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and 
the waters tributary thereto, Cook Inlet, and the Copper River delta, from six 
o'clock postmeridian of Friday of each week until six o'clock antemeridian of 
the Sunday following. 

This section provides a weekly close season of 36 hours, from 6 
o'clock p. m. Friday to 6 a. m. of the Sunday following. This is 
the same length of time laid clown in the present law, but the period 
has been advanced 24 hours earlier in the week. The close season 
under the present law is from 6 p. m. Saturday to 6 a. m. Monday. 
The chief reason for this change is for the purpose of obviating as 
far as possible work on Sunday at the canneries. The change has 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 91 

been advocated by the canning interests, and the department has 

lelt that a close season at another part of the week will he just as 
effective as it is on Sunday. Under the proposed change, no fish 
wiU he caught on Saturday, hence the canneries will, as a rule, find 
it unnecessary to operate on Sunday. This change, of course, will 
cause some of the fishermen to work on Sunday who heretofore 
have not been permitted to do so, but they will lie much fewer in 
number than those employed at the canneries who will not be forced 
to work on Sunday. 

Exception in the matter of a close season is made for the waters 
of Bering Sea and its tributaries, and Cook Inlet and the Copper 
Eiver Delta. Exception in the case of Bering Sea is for the reason 
that the fishing season is very short, usually covering only a period 
of 25 days in the month of July, and it is necessary for the canneries 
to fish every day, if possible, in order to operate successfully. 
Weather conditions are frequently very unfavorable, when all fish- 
ing must stop; thus there is in effect a natural close period, because 
the fish can continue on to the spawning grounds whether the weather 
is severe or not. Cook Inlet, which is in Central Alaska, is excepted 
from the weekly close season also because of unfavorable w T eather 
conditions. It very frequently happens that the fishermen can not 
operate in the waters of Cook Inlet. 

The waters of the Copper Eiver Delta have been excepted because 
of the many natural difficulties imposed upon the fishermen who 
operate in that region. The delta is about 40 miles in width and 
is broken up into hundreds of small channels and sloughs, and the 
fish thus have many avenues of escape. One of the chief forms of 
fishing gear in the Copper River is the stake net, which is in effect 
a gill net affixed permanently upon a row of stakes. This net when 
in operation often becomes partly covered up with mud and sedi- 
ment; and it would be almost a physical impossibility to remove it 
to prevent its fishing in the weekly close season. Therefore, if such 
n close period were made operative in the delta of the Copper Eiver 
it would practically prohibit the use of stake nets. It is not be- 
lieved that the fishery of the region will suffer depletion if a close 
season is not applied. The practical benefits of the close season are 
to permit a certain number of mature fish to ascend to the spawning 
grounds. No limitation, so far as a weekly close period is neces- 
sary in the Copper River Delta in order to accomplish this purpose. 
All three of the regions excepted in this bill are likewise excepted 
in the present law. 

Section 11 reads as follows: 

Sec. 11. Closing of waters, how provided. — That the Secretary of Commerce 
may in his discretion set aside any river or lake or parts thereof, and the 
waters outside thereof, and the waters outside thereof for a distance not 
greater than live hundred yards, in which fishing may he limited or entirely 
prohibited, hut such power shall he exercised only after a hearing, of which 
due notice must he given by publication not less than sixty days prior thereto 
in a newspaper in the district affected : and when the interested parties are 
known to the Secretary of Commerce they shall he personally notified by 
notice mailed not less than sixty days previous to stich hearing. No order 
made under this section shall he effective until one calendar year after the 
same is made. 

This section is for the purpose of creating breeding reserves where 
commercial fishing is prohibited, or where it may be limited. The 



92 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

waters which may thus be set aside include any river or lake, or the 
area for a distance not exceeding 500 yards outside the mouth of a 
river. Before any closing is made by the Secretary of Commerce 
under the provisions of this act, due notice must be given and a 
hearing granted, at which all interested persons may be heard. 

Mr. Hardy. Will you go back for a moment? If the object of the 
provision you referred to a while ago is to give Sunday a day of rest 
in that weekly close period, why not make it begin Saturday and 
run clear over Sunday? Run it from postmeridian Saturday until 
6 o'clock antemeridian Monday? 

Mr. Bower. That is the way it is in the present law ; but as I tried 
to explain, that forces more people to work than by advancing it 
24 hours, as suggested in this bill. 

Mr. Hadley. You see Saturday's catch of fish would be brought in 
and would have to be canned on Sunday, under that arrangement. 
Do you see? 

Mr. Hardy. Yes. 

Mr. Bower. There may be 300 people in the cannery, and only 100 
outside. Therefore, there would be a gain of 200 under this bill who 
would have a rest on Sunday. 

Mr. Hardy. Yes: I thought I would save them both. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Bower. Referring further to section 11, I will say that no 
closing order under this section is to be effective until one year after 
it is made. This is slightly different from the present law on this 
subject, for it is now provided that a closing order may become opera- 
tive at the beginning of a calendar year next after the issuance of the 
order. This change insures a little more time and gives the fishery in- 
terests more opportunity to plan their work before the closing order 
may affect any particular region. At the present time waters in three 
different sections of Alaska have been closed to fishing. There are 
three different orders which have been promulgated by the Secretary 
of Commerce to reserve certain waters for spawning areas. 

Section 12 of the bill is as follows : 

Sec. 12. Planting fish unlawful withof/t consent. — That is shall be un- 
lawful to liberate, release, implant, or place any fish of any kind or description 
in any of the waters of Alaska without first obtaining the written consent of the 
Secretary of Commerce. 

This is a new feature and is designed simply to guard against 
the introduction of undesirable fishes in any of the waters of Alaska. 
In some of the Western States predacious fish, such as bass, crappie, 
and perch, have been introduced in waters where they have had a 
destructive effect upon the more valuable trout or salmon. This is 
particularly true of Washington. It is to guard against this that 
the section under discussion has been incorporated in the bill. So 
far as we know, there has been no improper planting of fish in 
Alaska, and it may be some time before any tendency arises to do 
so, but it seems advisable to anticipate any such improper practice 
by legislation at the present time. 

Section 13 is as follows: 

Sec. 13. Unlawful to dfstf.oy food fisfi. — That it shall be unlawful for 
any person to waste or destroy any aquatic animal of commercial value taken 
or caught in any of the waters of Alaska : Provided, That waste or de- 
struction shall not be deemed a violation of this section when resulting from 
unavoidable causes. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 93 

The utilization of- any part of food fishes, other than the offal and waste 
thereof from establishments preparing fish food products, shall, three years 
after this act becomes effective, be regarded as waste if utilized in the manu- 
facture Of fertilizer, fish meal, fish oil, <>r other products not used for human 
consumption. 

It shall he unlawful to take any salmon or other food fish or shellfish by 
means of a spear or gaff, except for domestic consumption, anil it shall be 
unlawful to purchase any salmon or other food fish or shellfish taken by means 
of a spear or gaff for commercial use. 

This is to prevent the waste of food fishes. Such waste has some- 
times occurred in Alaska, where less valuable fish like chum sal- 
mon have been thrown away in considerable numbers when a larger 
or a more profitable catch of higher priced salmon could be ob- 
tained. This is covered by the present law which prevents the wan- 
ton waste of food fish. 

A new feature in this section of the bill is that three years after 
the measure becomes operative it will prohibit the manufacture of 
oil or fertilizer from food fishes. This will affect chiefly the two 
plants which now prepare oil from herring. This was discussed at 
considerable length by Dr. Jones in his statement earlier to-day. 

Mr. Hadley. You spoke of " wanton waste " under the existing 
statutes; is that word " wanton " in the old law ? 

Mr. Bower. It is in the old law. 

Mr. Hadley. Is it left out advisedly in this section ? 

Mr. Bower. It is left out advisedly in the present section. We 
have covered it by different phrasing. 

Dr. Smith. I want to ask if the language of this section, particu- 
larly the unqualified use of the word " destroy " in line 11 does not 
have the effect of prohibiting fishing altogether, and whether some 
modification of the language is not necessary ? 

The Chairman. In line 14. section 13? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. It makes it unlawful to " destroy any " fish. 
Perhaps the point I am trying to make would be met by inserting 
the word " legally " before the word " taking,'' in line 15, or per- 
haps by inserting the word tw needlessly " before the word " de- 
stroy." 

Mr. Hardy. Why not make it " illegally destroy? " 

Dr. Smith. I think the object of the section is quite obvious, but 
I just raise this question of phraseology. 

The Chairman. I did not quite get your point. 

Dr. Smith. This section, in line 11, makes it unlawful to destroy 
any aquatic animal of commerical character. Whenever you engage 
in fishing you destroy your catch; it is a necessary consequence of 
fishing. 

Mr. Hadley. Well, that is accompanied by the condition that they 
had previously taken or caught the fish: "Destroy any aquatic an- 
imal taken or caught." 

Dr. Smith. Well, you could not destroy them until you had caught 
them. 

Mr. Hardy. When you eat them you destroy them; that is the 
point Dr. Smith is raising. 

Mr. Rowe. Yes; that is a good point. 

Mr. Greene. What is the language you suggest, Dr. Smith? 



94 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Dr. Smith. Perhaps the word "needlessly " before the word 
" destroy " would meet the situation. The present law has the word 
" wanton," which is a very difficult situation to prove. 

Mr. Greene. Dr. Smith, I submit to you the inquiry whether that 
is not sufficiently covered by the word " waste," omitting the word 
" destroy " altogether, because it seems to me that the word " waste " 
incorporates the very idea that you are trying to incorporate in the 
statute; and that suggestion would not eliminate anything you wish 
to retain. 

Dr. Smith. It seems to me that that would meet the point. 

Mr. Greene. Taking out the words " or destroy." 

Mr. Bow t er. Take out the words "or destroy," in line 14. 

Mr. Greene. In line 16, you have the words " waste or destruc- 
tion." That would meet the case ; " or destruction," in line 16. 

Mr. Bower. You could take out the words " or destroy," in line 
14, and if necessary take out the words " or destruction," in line 16. 

Mr. Greene. That was my suggestion. 

Mr. Bower. I imagine that all purposes will be served, as far as 
administrative problems arise, if these words are omitted; it would 
so seem to me at first thought. 

The Chairman. Well, we will consider that. 

Mr. Bower. Another point in this section is that in regard to the 
commercial use of salmon or shellfish taken by means of spear or 
gaff. 

Dr. Smith. Will you explain the undesirableness of the practice 
that is here sought to be prohibited? 

Mr. Bower. On the Chilkoot River, in southeast Alaska, the In- 
dians resort to the practice of hooking or gaffing salmon, this oper- 
ation being well up toward the spawning grounds. The fish that 
they get in this manner are not regarded as being as good for canning 
purposes as those which are caught in the approved forms of appa- 
ratus. I remember that two or three years ago an agreement was 
entered into by three canneries concerned in that part of Alaska 
that they would not buy any of the salmon which had been hooked 
or gaffed by the Chilkoot Indians. I think the agreement was lived 
up to for one season. A fish that is hooked or gaffed in that manner 
will show a mark in the flesh after it is canned. Of course, that may 
not be a serious difficulty, but it lessens the value of the product. 

The Chairman. The spears run through the body of the fish, do 
they? 

Mr. Bower. Run through any part of the fish. Another and a 
very serious objection is that they gaff many that they do not get; 
they kill a lot of salmon that are never used commercially. Perhaps 
that is the most serious feature of the hooking or gaffing on the 
Chilkoot River. Now, there is no reason why the prohibition of this 
practice should work a serious hardship on the Indians, because they 
they can very readily adopt the approved methods of fishing, which 
the Indians are using in other parts of southeastern Alaska. For a 
number of years there has been a local cry in Alaska that the practice 
of gaffing salmon should be discontinued. It ought to be discon- 
tinued on humanitarian grounds, if for no other reason. 

Mr. Hadley. Of those that they hook or gaff they probably lose 
more than they take, do you not think so ? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 95 

Mr. Bower. Yes; that is the point I endeavored to make us being 
the most serious feature of it. More salmon that are injured get 
away than they take; it is a form of waste. 

Mr. Brittox. As a matter of practical application, if you go after 
an Indian who has been spearing or gaffing these fish and he says 
that he was trying to get them for domestic consumption, can you tell 
whether he was doing so in fact, or whether he was intending to use 
them for commercial purposes? 

Mr. Bower. We can judge by the number he takes. 

Mr. Brittox. I ask that because I see in this section there is an 
exception in favor of fish intended for domestic consumption : and it 
seems to me that opens the door to fraud. 

Mr. Bower. I think they ought to be allowed to take salmon in any 
way they want to for domestic consumption. 

The Chairman. If the canneries are prohibited from buying that 
kind of fish, would not that accomplish the desired result? 

Mr. Brittox. That is what it ought to be. 

The Chairmax. That would prevent the Indians from spearing any 
more than they needed for domestic consumption. 

Mr. Bower. Yes; I think that is covered by the closing lines of 
this section, where it says, " It shall be unlawful to purchase any 
salmon or other food fish or shellfish taken by means of a spear or 
gaff for commercial use." 

The Chairman. It seems to me that is a practicable way to get at it. 

Mr. Stroxg. I think it would be very well to make that cover every 
fish. Xow, I know that at Ketchikan fishermen have indulged in 
this practice; certain parties will go to a stream, and for what they 
call " sport " will gaff the fish, and hundreds of mutilated fish wift 
afterwards be found in the stream due to that method. Now, those 
people are not catching fish for commercial purposes. While we are 
on the subject I should think it would be well to make it cover them 
all; that no fish should be taken in that way. 

Mr. Bower. They are not taking them for domestic consumption, 
are they ? 

Mr. Stroxg. Not as a rule. It is generally for sport. 

Mr. Greene (interposing). Well, we do not provide any penalty 
for violation of this provision, do we ? 

Mr. Bower. There is a penalty for violating anv provision of the 
bill. 

Mr. Hardy. When they catch them in that way, Mr. Strong, they 
catch more than could be applied to their own use ? 

Mr. Stroxg. Yes; it is just the destruction of the fish that they are- 
after; it is a disgusting sight. 

The Chairman. It would be no hardship to prohibit that practice? 

Mr. Stroxg. It would be no hardship. The fish are so thick that 
you can actually go to the water and grab them with your hands. 
Some people will take a gaff or jigger and often get two or three fish 
at a single pull. 

Mr. Bower. I think the provision of the section covers that, be- 
cause it makes it unlawful to " waste or destroy " fish. 

The Chairmax t . But we can make the provision more definite. 

Mr. Hardy. We could make it illegal to take more than required 
for domestic use; and then one man could go and catch half a dozen 



96 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

for that purpose, and another could go out and take a few for sport 
and kill or injure a great many. 

Mr. Bower. I think it would be desirable to put in a specific phrase 
to prohibit that practice. 

The Chairman. To prohibit that practice altogether? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

Capt. Reynolds. I have seen people at Ketchikan dropping those 
things down in the water and taking the chance of injuring 50 fish; 
it is the sport of tourists to watch them do it that way. 

Mr. Hinds. Is that done by whites or by Indians ? 

Mr. Strong. Mostly by whites. 

Mr. Bower. We could omit the words " for domestic consumption," 
in lines 2 and 3, at the top of page 15 ; that will cover the matter. 

Mr. Hardy. Yes ; that will leave the law all right, I think. 

The Chairman. Yes; in reading Dr. Jones's report it strikes me 
that about the easiest thing on earth in Alaska would be to catch a 
fish. 

Dr. Smith. Yes; as you go along a stream you can pick them up 
in your hands, they are so thick ; the water is not very deep. 

Mr. Bower. Section 11 reads as follows: 

Sec. 14. Pollution of waters. — That it shall be unlawful to place or cause to 
be placed in any of the waters of Alaska any explosive, poisonous, or deleterious 
Substance whatsoever for the purpose of catching, taking, killing, or injuring 
fish, or to place or deposit in, or discharge or pass into, or cause to be placed 
where it may pass into any river, lake, lagoon, estuary, or waters of Alaska, any 
lime or other caustics, tar, petroleum, asphalt, bitumen, or other carbonaceous 
materials, oils, acids, or sulphates, or compounds thereof, sawdust, shavings, 
slabs, edgings, mill or factory refuse, slag, sluicings, tailings, smelter or mine 
refuse, or any other substance injurious to fish, fish fry, or the food of fish, or 
which is or may be injurious to the spawn or spawning beds of fishes ; and in 
the case of substances known to be deleterious to fishes, or to fish foods or 
spawn, it shall not be necessary to prove that the pollution of the waters by 
these substances in the particular case in question has actually caused the 
death or destruction of any fish, fish fry, spawn, or fish food : Provided, That 
nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the proper use of explosives 
in connection with the construction of buildings or emprovements : Provided 
further, That the placing of fish offal in the waters shall not be deemed a 
Violation. 

This section is to prevent the pollution of the waters of Alaska 
in ways injurious to fish and to prevent the use of explosives in 
taking fish. Many States have similar laws upon their statute books. 
The Legislature of Alaska passed a measure in 1913 to prevent the 
pollution of waters by means of lumbering wastes. This act is good 
as far as it goes, but it is not sufficiently comprehensive. The bill 
now at hand covers the matter much more thoroughly. Provision is 
made so as to permit the proper use of explosives in construction 
work. It is also provided that the dumping of fish gurry or waste 
shall not be considered as a pollution of the waters. 

The Chairman. Do you not think that that ought to be stricken 
out too? 

Mr. Bower. Well, in my opinion, cannery waste does not pollute 
seriously the cold waters of Alaska. As a matter of fact, I think it 
is a good thing to have a certain return of the waste from the fish, 
as it helps to "charge the water with minute forms of animal life 
upon which the younger fish of the succeeding generation may feed. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 97 

The Chairman. I understand that it does hot add anything to the 
joy of living? 

Mr. Bower. It does not for the time being, but around some of the 
villages I think the gulls take up a great deal of the refuse. They 
are splendid scavengers. 

Mr. Rowe. There are plenty of lakes in the Northern States where 
they feed the fish that way; they feed them that way in Maine. 

Mr. Warren. In the State of Oregon we collect refuse from the 
canneries and feed a great deal of it to the young fish in the rearing 
ponds, either by making maggot racks and placing them out in the 
streams, or by cooking and grinding it. or feeding it raw. At the 
canneries it is eaten up by chubs and other forms of fish almost im- 
mediately upon its being dumped. 

Mr. Greene. I do not know that it would be feasible, but I would, 
suggest this: In my own city we used to have fine fishing; we do not 
to-day, on account of the sewage. I think that is the most important 
danger as to all streams. I think that must be taken up sometime to 
prevent the pollution of streams through sewage. In my city, and 
also in Taunton, 15 miles above, the sewage has destroyed a large 
proportion of the fishing industry. I remember that when I was a 
boy we used to go into the river and catch fish very readily. 

Mr. Bower. What river was that? 

Mr. Greene. The Taunton River: the city of Fall River. 

Mr. Bower. We are aiming to prevent any such condition in 
Alaska. 

Mr. Greene. You have no provision in here as to sewage? 

Mr. Bower. Not specifically. 

Mr. Greene. Well, our city has 130,000 people, and we had sup- 
posed that salt water would neutralize all the bad effects of the sew- 
age ; but it has not done so. And I think that is one of the most im- 
portant things. I do not know how New York can stand it for a 
minute; I know the waters are quite offensive to my sense of smell 
in New 7 York when I go across the ferry; and that is a very im- 
portant element, it seems to me, of the pollution of waters — by 
sewage. 

Mr. Bower. Well, that I think is covered by lines 16 and 17, page 
15, where it says " any other substance injurious to fish, fish fry, or 
the food of fish." I think that blanket provision covers sewage. 

Mr. Greene. Well, you have put so much in here that I do not 
think anybody would think of sewage. It might be, and probably 
will be the case, that you will not get any sewage in Alaska for a 
great many years; but I believe that is a question that will have to 
be taken up; the sewage destroyed the fish in my community, and 
ultimately would do so in Alaska. 

The Chairman. Over in Baltimore they are spending millions of 
dollars in constructing septic tanks to take care of their sewage; it 
is not discharged into the bay ; it became so offensive that they could 
not stand it longer. And that method is being adopted all over the 
country. 

Mr. Greene. You would not think it possible in waters like ours, 
where the tide ebbs and flows every 12 hours: but the sewage in 
those waters have destroyed our fish, and also our bathing facilities, 
I have lived in the city for many years; I was connected with the 



98 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

^ity government for about 20 years; and I know that we have no 
bathing facilities except one private bathing beach a considerable 
distance from the city; no public bathing beach in a city of 130,000 
population, where the water of the river runs all the way from 25 
to 90 feet deep ; no bathing beaches, because the offal from the sewage 
backing on to the beaches makes them unfit for bathing purposes, 
besides destroying a large amount of very valuable fish, so that they 
do not come into our harbors. 

Mr. Strong. I think this matter of the offal is one which will take 
care of itself in a very few years; I think the time is coining when 
this offal can be utilized so a£ to add to the profits in the canning 
business; there is a waste at the present time, and they are working 
on methods of making use of it. 

Mr. Greene. The offal of the fish? 

Mr. Strong. The offal of the fish. 

Mr. Greene. I was not referring to that. I have a letter from 
Mr. George W. Field, for many years our fish commissioner, saying 
that I had called his attention over a year ago to that proposition, 
and he was now making an investigation along that line ; although 
he is not now fish commissioner he is now making an investigation 
on the line of the destruction of fish by reason of the deposit of 
sewage in the waters. 

Mr. Hardy. Do you not think that these general words in this 
section would be sufficient to cover the situation that the commis- 
sioner wrote to you about? 

Mr. Greene. I am not a lawyer, and I can not say as to that, but you 
lawyers can doubtless decide that question. 

Mr. Hardy. But you are familiar with the facts, and I do not 
think there is any question, from your statement alone, that sewage 
Would be injurious to fishes. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Bower. 

Mr. Bower. Section 15 of the bill reads as follows : 

Sec. 15. Dams to be provided with eishways. — That every dam or other 
obstruction across or in any stream shall be provided with a durable and 
efficient flshway, which shall be maintained in a practical and effective condi- 
tion in such place, and for which plans and specifications shall be furnished 
by the Secretary of Commerce upon application to him, and which shall be 
kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a sufficient quantity of water to 
freely admit the passage of fish through the same. Every owner, manager, 
agents or person in charge of any such dam or obstruction who shall fail to 
comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 

If any person shall fail to construct and maintain any such fishway or to 
remove such dam or obstruction in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of 
Commerce, then within sixty days after written notice thereof shall have been 
served on the owner, his agent, or the person in charge, such dam or obstruc- 
tion shall become a public nuisance and the Secretary of Commerce may take 
possession of same in the name of the United States of America and destroy 
same and no liability shall attach for such destruction ; or the Secretary of 
Commerce may construct a suitable fishway, and the actual cost of construc- 
tion of such fishway shall constitute a lien upon the dam and upon all the 
personal property of the person owning the same. No dam or obstruction shall 
be erected in any of the waters of Alaska to a height that, in the judgment of 
the Secretary of Commerce, shall make a fishway thereover impracticable, 
except as hereinafter provided. 

In the event that any person desires to construct a dam in any of the waters 
to a height that will make a fishway thereover impracticable, in the opinion 
of the Secretary of Commerce, then such person shall make application to 
the Secretary of Commerce for a permit to construct such dam, and the Secre- 
tary of Commerce is hereby authorized to grant such permit in his discretion, 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 99 

upon the condition tlial the person so applying Cor such permM shall convey to the 
Secretary of Commerce a site of the size and dimensions satisfactory to the Sec- 
retary of Commerce, al such place .-is may be selected by the Secretary of Com- 
merce, and the applicant sliall erect thereon at his expense a hatchery and 
hatchery residence, according to plans and specifications to be furnished by the 
Secretary of Commerce, and shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary 
of Commerce, secured by a good and sufficient bond, to furnish all water and 
lights without expense to operate said proposed hatchery; and no permit for 
the construction of any such dam shall he given by the Secretary of Commerce 
until the person applying for such permit shall have actually conveyed said land 
to the Secretary of Commerce and erected said hatchery and hatchery resi- 
dence in accordance with the said plans and specifications. The provisions of 
this section shall not apply to cases where dams have been heretofore con- 
structed in streams to a height where the construction of a fishway is im- 
practicable. 

There is nothing in the present Alaska law which requires the 
construction of fishways over dams. 

It is the practice in the States to require such structures; and 
since the Fisheries Code of the State of Washington, which was re- 
vised in 1915, covers this subject very comprehensively, w T e have 
patterned this section of the bill very closely upon that of Wash- 
ington. The salient point of this section is that every dam must 
be provided with a durable and efficient fishway, plans for which 
are to be furnished by the Secretary of Commerce. Many fishways 
fire defective as to foim and type, and as the department has devel- 
oped a suitable one it seems proper to require the use of that type. 
Under the provisions of this bill if any person fails to construct and 
maintain a fishway satisfactory to the Secretary of Commerce or 
remove the dam which is obstructing the passage of fish, the Secre- 
tary may destroy such dam or obstruction or may construct a suit- 
able fishway and assess the cost of it against the property owner. 
No dam may be erected to a height which in the judgment of the 
Secretary of Commerce will make a fishway thereover impracticable, 
unless such person shall erect a hatchway above the same at his 
expense, to be approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and turn 
such hatchery over to the Government. Eggs taken below the dam 
will be carried to the hatchery above, and the young fish resulting will 
be liberated so as to stock the waters above the dam. 

The owner of the dam shall also furnish lights and water free of 
cost to the Government to operate such hatchery. No permit for 
such a dam shall be granted until the hatchery shall have been 
erected and the land conveyed to the Government. The provisions 
of this section are not to apply in cases where dams have heretofore 
been constructed to a height where a fishway is impracticable. 

So far as I know at the present time, there are only two or three 
dams in Alaska which are erected to a height which presents the 
passage of fish and which are too high to permit of the construction 
of a fishway. 

The Chairman. Under what law are dams in these streams in 
Alaska regulated? 

Mr. Wickersham. I suppose finder the power-site law, if it ever 
gets through. 

The Chairman. Is there any existing law regulating the construc- 
tion of dams ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No, I do not know that there is, except that 
they are controlled either in the Forest Service or on the public 
lands; I do not know of any other dam in Alaska except that one 



100 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

at Juneau. There is a very large dam there, almost or quite as large 
as the Roosevelt Dam in New Mexico. Of course it would be im- 
possible to put the fish over that with any sort of process that would 
result in good to the fisheries. Where are there any other dams in 
Alaska, Mr. Bower ? 

Mr. Bower. I have in mind a power dam at Ketchikan; but that 
dam is at a place where the fish could not have gone up anyhow ; so 
it does not make any difference. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think the little creek north of Juneau was 
probably not a fish stream anyway. 

Mr. Bower. It was not; I have been there, and I know that fish 
never could have ascended as far as the dam. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know of any situation in Alaska that 
requires that section; it might arise, of course. 

Mr. Bower. We anticipate that there will be occasions where it 
will be highly desirable to have such a provision operative. A dam 
is being constructed, I believe, by the Alaska Gold Mines Co. near 
Taku Inlet, which is some 20 miles from Juneau, but I think it is 
away above any place where salmon could ascend under natural con- 
ditions. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, do you make any such exception in that 
section of the law ? 

Mr. Bower. No such exception is made. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know how far it might conflict with 
the power-site act. 

Mr. Greene. I think it might be well to put that provision in there. 

The Chairman. What I had in mind was that there ought to be 
some proviso in there that this provision was not intended to conflict 
with any power-site law enacted by Congress ; in other words, we do 
not want a conflict of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Hadley. We have in Washington, and I believe they have in 
other States, an absolute and unqualified statute; they clo not intend 
to have any restrictions in it there, and if by implication it would 
conflict with anything else, it would, of course, go to that extent. 

The Chairman. Well, if you are advised in the matter, it is all 
right; but somebody asked the question as to a possible conflict. 

Mr. Hadley. Well, I am not advised as to this; it might conflict; 
I do not know. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know of a single case in Alaska where 
that provision would ever have made any difference whatsoever; I 
do not know of any situation where it could be applied. 

Mr. Hadley. I do not know of the situation up there as to that. 

Mr. Greene. Our member from the State of Washington has had 
considerable to do with the Washington statute. 

The Chairman. Yes, I know ; Mr. Hadley was in the State senate 
when that measure was framed. 

Mr. Hadley. No, I was not a member of the legislature; but I 
was pretty closely identified with the business in a professional way, 
and I was in close touch with the preparation of the act at that time. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy. Have you in mind any case in which this provision 
might be useful, Mr. Bower ? 

Mr. Bower. Not at the present time, so far as it relates to the re- 
quirements in the construction of hatcheries. But I may say that 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 101 

right now one of our inspectors is investigating a situation which 
is alleged to exist at Pavlof Harbor, in southeast Alaska. We have 
had telegraphic advices from one of our representatives in that sec- 
tion, and he has been requested to investigate the alleged construction 
of a dam. 

The Chairman. It is a good provision to meet possible conditions 
that may arise. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, they have a general law there prohibiting 
the darning of fish streams. 

Mr. Bower. Well, there may be nothing in the present law under 
which Ave could handle the situation as it now exists, or as we think 
it may exist, at Pavlof Harbor, where it is reported that a power 
dam is being erected which will interfere with the passage of fish. 

Capt. Reynolds. It is possible to construct a dam in Copper River 
which would prevent any fish going up that river. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is possible in any stream to do that. 

Capt. Reynolds. That is also possible in Wood River and many 
of the rivers of Alaska. 

Mr. Bower. If a power dam were put in at .the canyon on the 
Copper River, the spawning area for several hundred miles above 
would be destroyed, without some provision in the laAv. such as out- 
lined by this bill. 

The Chairman. It strikes me that it is a very desirable and neces- 
sary provision. 

Mr. Bower. I hope it will remain in the bill ; it was found neces- 
sary in Oregon. 

Mr. Warren. In Oregon, the construction of dams practically 
caused the loss of the fishery on the Clackamas River ; they built the 
dam and the fish could not get up the stream, and they spawned 
down below and the run was absolutely lost. 

Capt. Reynolds. We have the same condition in Washington. 

Mr. Bower. In the State of Washington there is the same condi- 
tion. I am not familiar with the details of it ; but I know that the law 
in Washington is very helpful to the Federal hatchery that operates 
at that point. 

Mr. Britton. The idea is that this law will apply to any structure; 
however authorized, whether under a general or a special law ; that 
this would apply to them all. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, I always think it is bad legislation to pass 
a law without some reason for it, because it is much more likely then 
to do harm than it is to do good; but I do not want to make any 
objection. 

The Chairman. Yes; we will consider that question. 

Mr. Bower. Section 16 reads as follows: 

Sec. 16. Barricades and other obstructions. — That it shall lie unlawful to 
erect or maintain any barricade, fence, or other fixed or stationary obstruction, 
or any fishing appliance other than those lawful under the provisions of this 
act. except for purposes of fish culture, in any of the waters of Alaska for the 
purpose of preventing or impeding the ascent of fish to their spawning grounds, 
and the Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized and directed to have any 
and all such unlawful obstructions removed or destroyed. 

The substance of this section is already covered by existing law. 
It is designed to prevent the blockading or barricading of streams. 
46232— pt 2—16 5 



102 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

This obnoxious and destructive practice was much in vogue during 
the Russian occupancy of Alaska and until about 20 years ago, when 
the act of 1896, the first fisheries act for Alaska of any consequence, 
went into effect. The evils of barricading streams in Alaska have 
been most serious ; in fact, some of the waters have probably never 
recovered their one-time value as salmon producers. The obstructing 
of streams by blockades or barricades is done for the purpose of 
causing the schooling of fish immediately below, thus making their 
capture easy. The obstruction also results in preventing fish from 
ascending for spawning purposes, and the ultimate outcome is to 
render the stream barren of salmon. 

In the Alaskan investigations of the Albatross in 1897 and sub- 
sequently many barricades were destroyed. I may say that hundreds 
of fixed stream barricades were removed. 

Capt. Reynolds. There are now no such barricades existing, to 
your knowledge, are there? 

Mr. Bower. So far as we are aware there are now no such barri- 
cades existing. 

Section IT of the bill, relating to hatcheries, is as follows : 

Sec. 17. Hatcheries. — That after passage of this act the Secretary of Com r 
merce is hereby directed to purchase, or to acquire by condemnation in the 
manner in which lands are condemned or appropriated for public use, any and 
all of the private salmon hatcheries in Alaska which have been heretofore ap- 
proved under the act of Congress of June twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and 
six, the same to be paid for by certificates of purchase in such denominations as 
may be desired by the sellers, and such certificates may be used at any time 
for the payment pro tanto of any license fees or taxes upon or against or on 
account of the catch or pack of said sellers, their successors or assigns. 

The exemption from license fees and taxes in favor of the owners of private 
salmon hatcheries in Alaska as provided by section two of the act of Congress 
entitled "An act for the protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska," 
approved June twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and six, for the release of red 
and king salmon fry, shall hereafter apply to existing hatcheries until the date 
of their purchase by the Secretary of Commerce. 

This is an important section, as it seeks to do away with the opera- 
tion of private hatcheries now authorized by law. There are five 
such hatcheries in Alaska at the present time. This bill requires 
that the Secretary of Commerce shall purchase these hatcheries or 
lacquire them by condemnation in the manner in which lands are con- 
demned or appropriated for public use. Payment for the hatcheries 
may be made by certificates of purchase in such denominations as 
may be desired by the sellers, these certificates to be negotiable for 
the payment of license taxes upon the fishery product of such sellers, 
their successors or assigns. It is further stipulated in this section 
that the exemption from license fees in favor of the owners of private 
liatcheries as provided for under the present law of June 26, 1906, 
shall continue to apply to existing private hatcheries until such time 
as they may be taken over by the Secretary of Commerce. This seems 
only fair and just. 

Mr. Greene. May I ask what is the purpose of purchasing these 
hatcheries — condemning them? Why could you not allow these 
parties that have these hatcheries and are doing business there to 
continue? Why do you want to take that under the Government? 

Mr. Bower. Well, for a long time there has been a disposition on 
the part of Alaska that the operation of private hatcheries is wrong 
in principle. The department feels that, although those hatcheries 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 103 

are, in most cases, operated satisfactorily, there is not the effort and 
the close attention to the work that the Government with its facilities 
would give. 

The Chairman. These people want the Government to take them 
over, do they not? 

Mr. Bower. There has been no objection raised, so far as I know. 
I may say that four years ago, when Capt. Moser, of the Alaska 
Packers' Association, testified before the Senate committee on the 
subject, speaking for his company, I believe he said in substance 
that they were resigned to the fact that the Government was the 
proper authority to control the hatcheries, and they were ready to 
sell upon the basis of a fair price. 

The Chairman. Well, these hatcheries were erected, in the first 
place, in order to propagate the fish b}r those who were interested 
in that? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If the Government takes them over and that pur- 
pose is accomplished, they would have no reason to complain. They 
ought to turn them over without any pay, really, if the Government 
would do the work, because I understand that now they are not 
operating at a profit. 

Mr. Bower. They are not operating at a profit at the present time. 
I will explain that a little more in a moment, if I may. 

The Chairman. All right, 

Mr. Bower. Xow, it seems only fair to give the operators of such 
hatcheries the benefit of any rebates — I am referring now to the 
latter part of section IT of the bill — if considerable time should elapse 
before the taking over of the hatchery by the Government. There- 
fore the exemptions of the present law of June 26, 1906, should con- 
tinue in force until the transaction is consummated. It is not antici- 
pated, however, that any material delay will occur. 

I will now speak briefly as to the history of the operation of 
private hatcheries in Alaska. The act of June 9, 1896, referred to 
the stocking of streams by private hatchery enterprise. The order 
of May 2, 1900, of the Secretary of the Treasury, who then had 
jurisdiction over the fisheries of Alaska, required that every person 
who took salmon for commercial purposes should operate a hatchery 
at or near his place of business and return each year salmon fry to 
the extent of four times the number of adult salmon taken. This 
was reaffirmed by the order of February 18^ 1901. It was renewed by 
the order of January 21, 1902, which required that instead of red- 
salmon fry being released in numbers equaling four times the num- 
ber of mature fish taken by each company the proportionate number 
be increased to ten times the number of mature fish taken. The 
matter was reiterated in the order of May 10, 1901, promulgated by 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, which order was issued soon 
after jurisdiction over the salmon fisheries of Alaska had been trans- 
ferred from the Secretary of the Treasury. 

No active effort was made by the Government to enforce this re- 
quirement, as it was realized that the peculiar demands and tech- 
nical character of successful fish-cultural operations made it almost 
impossible for most of the companies to establish hatcheries. In 
1901 a protest was registered by a number of the companies affected 
by the order. Only nine private hatcheries were established, of 



104 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



which four were of little consequence and soon ceased to exist. 
There are five now in operation. 

The order requiring the release of red-salmon fry by those en- 
gaged in fishing* operations in Alaska continued in effect until the 
passage of the act of June 26, 1906, which law is still operative. 
Under the terms of that act an exemption from license tax is al- 
lowed the operators of private hatcheries at the rate of 10 cases of 
salmon for each 1,000 red or king salmon fry liberated. This re- 
bating system was regarded as proper as a means of reimbursing 
the owners of hatcheries who were conducting institutions along 
approved lines. No rebates are allowable under the law unless the 
hatcheries are approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Although 
most of the private hatcheries are operated along approved lines, 
the system seems wrong in principle, and the only proper way of 
handling the situation is for the Government to acquire these hatch- 
eries. For years the people of Alaska have made this feeling known 
to the Government by means of petitions, and the Legislature of 
Alaska has memorialized Congress to the same end. The depart- 
ment is in hearty accord with the plan of taking over these hatch- 
eries, and it is especially hoped that this feature of the bill will 
receive favorable consideration at the present time. 

The Chairman. Where are these hatcheries located? 

Mr. Bower. Four of them are in southeast Alaska and one in 
central Alaska. There is one at Loring, one at Hetta, and another 
at Quadra ; one at Klawock and the fifth one is at Karluk, on Ko- 
diak Island. Two of them are large establishments ; one has a ca- 
pacity of 110,000,000 eggs and the other 55,000,000 eggs. Those 
are the ones at Loring and at Karluk. The other three have a 
capacity varying from ten to twenty million eggs. I am speaking 
only in round numbers. 

Perhaps it might be well to insert in the record at this point a 
table showing the amount of rebates received in the past 10 years. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Bower. These figures do not necessarily represent the tax or 
rebate paid in any one year ; the figures are the amounts paid in for 
each year, and sometimes back taxes are paid, thus swelling the 
total in one year and causing a corresponding shortage in the amount 
of the previous year or the year when due. 
* (The table referred to is as follows:) 

Amounts received from fishery taxes and amounts of hatchery rebates of taxes 
in Alaska, as reported by the Treasury Department, Mar. 28, 1916. 



Year. 


Cash. 


Hatchery 
rebates. 


Total. 


1906 


$58, 832. 79 

73,417.09 

93, 748. 55 

57, 664. 24 

134, 940. 47 

88,390.50 

116,508.11 

127, 709. 17 

146, 296. 85 

166, 253. 81 




$58,832.79 


1907 




73, 417. 09 


1908 


88,498.80 
7,110.40 
29, 703. 48 
35,434.08 
39, 746. 00 
59, 474. 24, 
43,044.84 
18,937.40 


102, 247. 35 


1909 


64,774.64 


1010 


164, 643. 95 


1911 


123, 824. 58 


1912 .. 


156,254.11 


1913 . 


187, 183. 41 


1914 .. 


189,341.69 


1915 


185, 191. 21 






Total 


1,063,761.58 


241,949.24 


1,305,710.82 







ALASKA FISHERIES. 105 

The next is section 18 

Mr. Hardy. Before you leave that section, what is the value of 
these private hatcheries that you speak of? About what are they 
going to cost the Government s 

Mr. Bower. They have not been appraised, but if I were to esti- 
mate roughly, offhand, I should say probably all five are worth in the 
neighborhood of $75,000 ; at least that. 

Mr. Hardy. Why might not this law have a proviso 

The Chairman. I think they ought to give them to the Govern- 
ment. I am a little suspicious they are handing us a lemon, anyhow. 

Mr. Hardy. I have an idea they are not making any money out of 
them, and if the Government would run them it would be a good 
thing to turn them over to them. 

Mr. Bower. They probably think they can run them as well as the 
Government. 

Mr. Hardy. Are they making any money out of them % 

Mr. Boaver. I do not know for certain, but I think not. 

Mr. Greene. If they are not making any money, the Government 
will pretty soon go bankrupt taking over all the broken-down busi- 
ness of the country. 

The Chairman. I am a little bit suspicious of this. 

Mr. Hardy. We might make this proviso, that they should give 
them to the Government ; and if they do not want to give them to the 
Government, they can continue to operate them under the old law, 
under which they were built. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Bower. Section 18 is as follows : 

Sec. 18. All aquatic animals included. — That the catching, killing, or 
utilization of any fish of any kind or aquatic animal of any kind or species 
whatsoever not specifically provided for in this act shall be subject to the pro- 
visions of this act, but the Secretary of Commerce shall have power to authorize 
the catching, killing, or utilization of any such fish or animal under such regu- 
lations as he may prescribe. 

This section extends the provisions of the act to all species of fish 
and aquatic animals not specifically mentioned. It further provides 
that the Secretary of Commerce shall have power to authorize the 
catching, killing, or utilization of anj^ such fish or animal under 
such regulations as he may prescribe. Various features of the bill, 
such as distance limitations imposed upon fishing gear, the weekly 
close period, the closing of waters, and the erection of barricades and 
other obstructions refer particularly to salmon. In order to make 
such limitations apply to all species of fish, such as herring, trout, 
black cod, and others, it has been deemed proper to incorporate this 
section in the bill. It is covered in substance by section 11 of the 
act of June 26, 1906, now in force. 

Mr. Rowe. What is the object of putting in animals outside of fish ? 

Mr. Bower. We have in mind whales, the walrus, sea lions, and 
hair seals. It is not contemplated that this shall include the fur 
seals, which are the subject of special legislation. 

Mr. Rowe. Are they exempted here ? 

Mr. Bower. They are not exempted here. The thought occured to 
me this afternoon that we ought to guard against that in this par- 
ticular section, so as not to cause any complications with our special 
legislation and treaties affecting the fur seals and sea otters. 



106 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Greene. What are you going to do with the whale fisheries? 
Is it contemplated by the Government to conduct them instead of 
private individuals ? 

Mr. Bower. I have in mind the resolution introduced in the pres- 
ent Congress by Mr. Wickersham, House concurrent resolution 18, 
which I think was introduced February 24 of this year and referred 
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It seems to me that a very 
valuable suggestion has been offered in that the whale fishery really 
ought to be the subject of international treaty. It is something that 
we can not control so far as the capture of such animals is concerned 
outside of the 3-mile limit. We have not thought that over thor- 
oughly as yet. 

Mr. Greene. I do not represent any part of the whale fishery 
now, but I did for 14 years represent here the city of New Bedford ; 
but I know there is a Kepresentative we have whose hair would rise 
right up on top of his head if he should find any proposition up here 
to do anything to interfere with the whale fishery. It is one of the 
oldest industries in Massachusetts, and Massachusetts has spent a 
great deal of money in the whale fisheries. And if you are going 
into the whale fisheries I should like to know it; I should object to 
anything going into this bill until I find out. 

Dr. Smith. The fact that there has been no interference on the part 
of anybody is responsible for the fact that the whale fishery has gone 
all to pieces. 

Mr. Greene. That may be. 

The Chairman. I think Mr. Wickersham's suggestion is the only 
proper way to go about it — that is, by an international agreement 
just like we have for the seal fisheries on the Pribilof Islands. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is up there a large area where the ice 
comes down, and the walrus by the thousand go on that island, and 
the natives live on the walrus; and when they are destroyed you 
would have to make an appropriation for their support, probably. 
Of course, the Government is putting a little food supply in there in 
the shape of reindeer, and that may assist somewhat ; but there is no 
necessity for these walrus to be slaughtered and dumped off into the 
water and go to wreck and ruin. It has been mostly by the tourists 
and outside of the 3-mile limit where we can not reach it by any law 
which you make or any law which the Territory makes, excepting a 
law which will apply to an offense committed outside of the territorial 
limits. 

The Chairman. I suppose the only way to reach it is by their bring- 
ing in any part of the offal into the Territory. 

Mr. Wickersham. And then when you do that the people in the 
other country will take over the whale fishery and the walrus fishery. 

The Chairman. You think this section is broad enough to include 
that? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not think that section ought to be in there 
at all. 

Mr. Hadley. I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, while we are 
not acting on the bill in this general talk, I do not see personally a 
reason for the retention of that section unless it embraces something 
other than fish that it is intended to control. We are only dealing, 
by the title here, with the protection, regulation, and conservation 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 107 

of the fisheries of Alaska; and I imagine we would probably run into 
a conflict with other lines of business that are really not involved here 
by holding that provision. 

' Mr. Greene. This is for the conservation of the fisheries of Alaska. 

Mr. Hadley. I only refer to that so that if the department knows 
of any good reason it can be suggested. 

Mr. Boaver. Let me elaborate, if I may, as to why this section is 
urgently necessary. If you want to leave out all reference to aquatic 
animals, all well and good. But I believe this section is urgently 
needed if the department is to be given adequate authority to police 
the waters of Alaska and protect and conserve the fisheries. The 
reason is that if we want to reach the herring or cod or other fishes 
that are not specifically mentioned in some of the sections earlier in 
the bill, we have to do it by this section. The solicitor of the depart- 
ment has urged and set forth very clearly that this must be in the bill. 

Mr. Greene. You say you have only the fish in mind ; that hits the 
whale there. 

Mr. Bower. I say omit that, if necessary, and let us apply the limits 
of the Sunday close season and distance limitations, for example, to 
the herring fishery; otherwise they will not apply if this section is 
taken from the bill. 

The Chairman. Suppose you consider that and suggest an amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Bow r ER. It has been considered very carefully by the solicitor 
of the department, and we have also especially 

The Chairman. After you have given it the proper consideration, 
suppose you suggest an amendment which will avoid this possible 
difficulty that is suggested. 

Mr. Bower. The possible difficulty so far as the whale fishery is 
concerned? 

The Chairman. Yes ; and the fur-seal fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. I want to call the committee's attention to the 
fact this takes in aquatic animals. Aquatic animals — many of them 
are land animals ; that is to say, they live in the rivers and all up in 
the country. The muskrat and the beaver and all those animals are 
aquatic animals, and it is merely an opportunity to establish another 
bureau for the conservation of the jack rabbits in Alaska. We could 
avoid that by mentioning specifically the animals to be covered. 

The Chairman. Say "marine animals"? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; marine animals. 

The Chairman. That would settle it ? 

Dr. Smith. Don't you want other water animals protected? 

Mr. Wickersham. No. 

Dr. Smith. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, this is not intended 
to apply to any fur-bearing animals. 

Mr. Wickersham. But it does, Doctor? 

The Chairman. It is broad enough. 

Mr. Hardi*. I have a memorandum here " not to include fur-bearing 
animals," which might be put in in a proviso. 

Mr. Greene. Before you close this, I have a lawyer friend who 
represents New Bedford now, and he is quite bright. I think he 
would like to have a word to say before it comes to any final deter- 
mination; I think he would use language very freely if he found this 



108 ALASKA FISfiERlES. 

was in the bill. They would call on me to help pound, too — I repre- 
sented them so long. 

Mr. Bower. Section 19 is as follows : 

Sec. 19. Reports, inspections, and regulations. — That every person licensed 
to engage in the business of catching, preserving, or preparing fish or other 
aquatic animals or in manufacturing fishery products shall make detailed an- 
nual reports thereof to the Secretary of Commerce, on blanks furnished by him, 
covering all such facts as may be required with respect thereto for the informa- 
tion and use of the Department of Commerce and Congress. Such reports shall 
be sworn to by the superintendent, manager, or other person having knowledge 
of the facts, a separate blank being used for each establishment, and the same 
shall be forwarded to the Department of Commerce not later than December 
thirty-first of each year. 

The Secretary of Commerce and his duly authorized agents shall have power 
to inspect all fishing appliances and all property used in catching, packing, 
curing, preparing, or storing food fish or shellfish or other fish or aquatic ani- 
mals, or in the fishing industry, and may enter upon any property at any time 
for any such purpose. 

To enforce the provisions of this act the Secretary of Commerce is hereby 
authorized and directed to make and establish such rules and regulations, not 
inconsistent with law, as may be necessary for that purpose and for the proper 
investigation, inspection, and regulation of the Alaska fisheries, and the in- 
vestigation and protection of marine algae, shellfish, and all other aquatic 
animals not otherwise provided for by law, and to detail from the officers and 
employees of the Department of Commerce a force adequate for the perform- 
ance of the duties required. 

This section requires sworn statements from all persons licensed 
to take or preserve fish or aquatic products, such statements to be 
made to the Secretary of Commerce who shall furnish blanks 
therefor. 

The Chairman. That is an administrative feature. 

Mr. Bower. That is an administrative feature. Another .part of 
the section authorizes the Secretary to inspect all fishing appliances 
and property used in the industry ; this seems proper and necessary. 
A concluding part of the section authorizes the Secretary of Com- 
merce to establish rules and regulations. This is covered in the law 
at present. 

Mr. Wickersham. That, I think, is the greatest difficulty we have 
in Alaska, that rules and regulations bill. I do not want to say much 
about it now ; I only want to call the committee's attention that it 
gives the bureaus here authority to make laws and we object to it. 

The Chairman. We have passed section 20. 

Mr. Bower. Section 20 is as follows: 

Sec. 20. Compensation for injuries. — That the provisions of the act ap- 
proved May thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eight, entitled "An act granting to 
certain employees of the United States the right to receive from it compensation 
for injuries sustained in the course of their employment," shall, in addition to 
the classes of persons therein designated, be held to apply to any employee en- 
gaged in any hazardous work in Alaska of the Bureau of Fisheries of the 
Department of Commerce, including the enforcement of the laws for the protec- 
tion and conservation of the fisheries: Provided, That this section shall not be 
held to embrace any case arising prior to the passage of this act. 

This section is calculated to provide compensation for injuries to 
the employees of the department in Alaska. They are engaged in a 
hazardous work, as was touched upon by Dr. Jones this morning. 
The act referred to would give them full pay for a year if they were 
incapacitated, or their estate or dependents would be allowed the 
same compensation. We had one agent who was injured on the shore 
at Juneau a number of years ago, which resulted in his death; two 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 109 

men were lost on St. Paul Island, a man was lost from the steamer 
Osprey, and last fall one of our wardens started out on an official 
trip and we never have seen him since. We think that shows clearly 
it is hazardous work. 

Mr. Wickersham. Did you ever find his boat? 

Mr. Bower. Yes ; the wreck of the boat was found near the Chick- 
amin River, in southeast Alaska. 

Section 21 is as follows : 

Sec. 21. Territorial legislation prohihited. — That from and after the pas- 
sage of this act the Territory of Alaska shall not pass any legislation that has 
the effect of repealing, altering, or amending this act, nor shall said Territory 
impose any license fees or taxes upon the business hereinbefore referred to, nor 
upon the output thereof, nor upon any property, real or personal, used in said 
business in said Territory, and any such existing statutes heretofore enacted 
by the Territory of Alaska are hereby expressly disapproved. 

This refers to the prohibition of Territorial legislation. I think 
that was discussed quite fully by the Secretary of Commerce at the 
hearing a week ago. 

Mr. Hardy. Have you provided any qualification and amendment 
of that section that would cover the point at issue when the Secretary 
discussed it? 

Mr. Bower. I have not, and I would like to ask if the committee 
would not care to defer that until the Secretary's return. I believe 
he indicated a desire to express himself further along that line. I 
trust the committee will do so. 

Mr. Hardy. For one, as a member of the committee, I want to see 
some amendment to it. 

Mr. Hadley. We will have subsequent meetings. 

Mr. Bower. Section 22 is as follows : 

Sec. 22. Violations ; how prosecuted. — That any violation of this act may 
be prosecuted in any district court of Alaska or in any district court of the 
United States in the States of California, Oregon, or Washington. It shall be 
the duty of the Secretary of Commerce to enforce the provisions of this act and 
the rules and regulations made thereunder. It shall be the duty of the district 
attorney to whom any violation is reported by any representative of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce or any other United States official to institute proceedings 
necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. 

This section provides that prosecutions may be made as under the 
present law. 

Section 23 is as follows: 

Sec 23. Fines and penalties. — That any person willfully violating any pro- 
vision of this act, or any regulation established in pursuance thereof, shall be 
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished 
by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500. or by imprisonment for a 
term of not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at 
the discretion of the court. Any vessel or other apparatus or equipment used 
or employed in violation of any provision of this act, or of any regulation made 
thereunder, may lie seized by order of the court or by order of the Secretary of 
Commerce and turned over to the United States marshal, and by him held 
subject to the payment of such fine or fines as may be imposed. A further 
fine of not more than $250 per diem may, at the discretion of the court, be 
imposed for each day the obstructions unlawful under section sixteen are 
maintained. 

This provides the fines and penalties. A particular point of sec- 
tion 23 is that there is a minimum fine now provided, namely, that 
of $50. This is regarded as an improvement over the present law. 



110 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. It is the policy of Congress, I know, in revising 
the criminal code, and in framing our shipping bill we did so, to cut 
out the minimum punishment, and that, I think, is a very good 
policy. 

Mr. Kowe. You may have this up against some poor Indians, and 
$50 would seem like a fierce amount of money. 

Mr. Bower. Yes; so far as the Indians are concerned it might 
Avork as a hardship ; at the same time it would act as a deterrent to 
the violation of the law. That is the object of it. 

Mr. Rowe. Why not say " not more than 500 " % 

Mr. Bower. That is the law as it now stands. 

Mr. Rowe. What is the objection to the way it works? 

Mr. Greene. These large fines will prevent any carrying out of 
the law where the judges or the juries think it is a little too tough. 

Mr. Bower. The objection at present is that a man may violate 
the law and catch $100 worth of fish and he may be subject to a fine 
of a dollar. 

The Chairman. No; he is subject to a fine of $500. 

Mr. Bower. He is subject to a fine of not over $500; but there is 
difficulty in enforcing the law. Of course, if in the wisdom of the 
committee it is not deemed proper to fix a minimum 

Mr. Rowe. We might say $5. 

Mr. Bower. $50 may be too much as a minimum fine. 

Mr. Hardy. Yes; some of those violations might be very minor 
matters and hardly consciously done. 

Mr. Bower. We have great difficulty in getting convictions in 
Alaska. 

Mr. Greene. You have great difficulty in getting convictions any- 
where by juries. 

Mr. Rowe. They do not fix the penalty; the judge fixes the penalty. 

Mr. Bower. The judge fixes the penalty. 

Mr. Hardy. They ought not to do that; they ought to let the 
juries fix the penalty. 

Mr. Bower. In conclusion, I suggest including in the record sec- 
tions 24, 25, and 26, as follows : 

Sp:c. 25. Definitions. — That for the purposes of this act the following defini- 
tions are adopted to apply to the words in question wherever the same shall be 
used : 

"Person": Any person, persons, firm, partnership, corporation, association, 
or society. 

" Pound net " : Any fixed or floating fish trap or similar device constructed 
of webbing, wire, brush, or other material, and held in place by piles, anchors, 
or moorings, but excluding small native nets or traps which may be transported 
In toto by one man. 

" Stake net " : A gill net attached or affixed to piles or stakes. 

" Set net " : An anchored gill net. 

" Seine " : All forms of nets known as seines, stow nets, drag nets, drag bag 
nets, bag nets, draw nets, reef nets, and dredge nets. 

" Salmon " : Wherever the word " salmon " occurs in this act it shall be con- 
strued to apply to the red, sockeye, king, silver, steelhead, chum, and pink 
salmon and trout. 

" Case " : Forty-eight one-pound cans or containers, or their equivalent in 
weight of other sizes. 

" Barrel " : Two hundred pounds of fish, or fifty gallons of oil. 

" Tierce " : Eight hundred pounds of fish. 

" Ton " : Two thousand pounds. 

" Waters " : All the Territorial waters of Alaska, together with all other 
waters contiguous to Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. Ill 

" River": Any stream or creek. 

"Mean high water": The moan of the lowest and highest high tides. 

"Fishery": The act of taking for commercial purposes any aquatic product. 

"Location": The actual position in the water of any fishing apparatus. 

Sec. 25. Repeating clause. — That after this act takes effect the act of Con- 
gress entitled "An act for the protection and regulation of the fisheries of 
Alaska," approved June twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and six, and all acts or 
parts of acts of Congress or the Territorial Legislature of Alaska inconsistent 
with the provisions of this act, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 

Sec. 26. When act takes effect. — That this act shall take effect from and 
after January first of the year next after its passage. 

Section 24 contains the definitions which are applicable in the bill. 
Section 25 is the repealing clause, and section 26 indicates when the 
act is to take effect. 

The Chairman. With reference to the repealing clause, early this 
afternoon attention was called to that, and we want to make it clear 
that we are not affecting the law creating what is called the Alaska 
fund. 

Mr. Bower. So as to allow the use of moneys w 7 ithin incorporated 
towns ; is that the point ? 

The Chairman. That is one thing; yes. 

Mr. Rowe. And then you have some paragraphs in here that are 
to take effect quite a distance ahead. We do not want this repealing 
act to go into effect in so far as the law affects those things at the 
present time, do you — until the new act goes into effect ? 

Mr. Bower. That is very true; we must guard against anything 
of that sort. 

The Chairman. It says, " except as otherwise herein provided." 

Mr. Eowe. They have some portions of this going into effect at 
different times. 

Mr. Hardy. That would be cured if they didn't have this repealing 
clause. 

Mr. Rowe. But you have it in there. 

Mr. Hardy. There is no need of that in any law. 

Mr. Rowe. It is quite often stricken out, I notice. 

Mr. Hardy. Yes; this law will repeal everything in conflict and 
only those matters in the present law which come in conflict ; so that 
if you strike out that one clause repealing everything else, when this 
gets in operation it will repeal everything in conflict. 

Mr. Bower. Which w ords would you strike out ? 

Mr. Hardy. I would strike out — if you have a separate clause re- 
pealing everything in conflict, strike that out. ' 

Mr. Boaver. I do not knoAv that we have a separate repealing clause 
that will conflict. . 

Mr. Hadley. Section 25 ; that is the one that is involved. If you 
were to add, after the words at the end of section 25, " in so far as the 
same are inconsistent," would not that be a sufficient saving clause ? 

Mr. Hardy. But then it is utterly useless, because they are repealed 
so far as they are in conflict, anyhow. 

Mr. Hadley. I think it is covered as it is; that is just to make it 
a little clearer. 

The Chairman. That is a matter we can consider ; as far as that is 
concerned, that is a detail. 

(Thereupon, at 5.28 o'clock p. m., the hearing was adjourned to 
Saturday, June 3, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



APPENDIX. 



Appendix A. 

This appendix embraces those sections of the fisheries code of 
Washington (ch. 31, Laws of 1915) which have particular reference 
and application in regard to the contemplated modification of the 
Alaska fishery law. 

The Fisheeies Code of Washington. 

short title. 

Section 1. This act shall be known as the Fisheries Code of Washington. 

FISH COMMISSION. 

Sec. 2. The governor, State treasurer, and commissioner shall constitute a 
board to be known as the State fish commission, of which the governor shall 
be chairman and the State fish commissioner secretary. (See Rem. & Bal., 
sees. 5164, 5241, 5242.) 

POWER TO INSPECT. 

Sec. 7. The commissioner shall have power to inspect all canneries, boats, nets, 
wheels, traps, and all other appliances, and all property used in catching, packing, 
curing, preparing, or storing food or shellfish, or in the fish industry, and may 
enter on any property at any time for any such purpose. (See Rem. & Bal., 
sec. 5154.) 

COMMISSION MAY PROHIBIT PISHING. 

Sec 10. The commission may prohibit fishing for both food and game fish in 
any river or stream, or any part thereof, should they consider it necessary for 
the protection of the food and game fishes mentioned in this act. When the com- 
mission shall desire to close any river or stream to fishing they shall publish 
in a weekly newspaper in such county or counties through which such stream 
or river flows for not less than two successive issues a notice stating -that from 
a certain date, which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of said notice, 
to a date also to be fixed in said notice, said stream or river, or the portion 
thereof therein described, shall be closed to fishing. It shall be unlawful to take 
any of the food and game fishes mentioned in this act, by any means whatever, 
from any stream or river during the closed period defined in such notice, except 
the Columbia River where the same forms a State boundary. (See Rem. & Bal., 
sec. 5217.) 

TO DESIGNATE MOUTHS OF RIVERS. 

Sec. 11. The commissioner shall designate the mouths of rivers by driving 
piles or establishing monuments. In the designation of the mouths of the 
rivers of this State the commissioner shall be guided by the shore headlands 
on either side of the river and his designation shall be final. He shall desig- 
nate by the erection of monuments and signs the fishing limits of rivers, and 
when the mouth of a river has been so designated the commissioner shall cause 
a plat of the same showing its location to be filed in his office for public inspec- 
tion, and shall also furnish the auditor of the county in which the mouth of said 

112 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 113 

river or stream is located with a copy of said plat', which the auditor shall keep 
on rile for public inspection. (See Rem. <S: Bal., sec. 5183.) 

[Judgment of tish commissioner in designating mouths of rivers will not be 
collaterally reviewed by the courts, (llallack v. Davis, 22 Wash., 393.) | 

TERMS DEFINED. 

Sec. 15. Wherever the word "salmon " occurs in this act it shall be construed 
to include and apply to the sockeye, silver, Chinook, steelhead, chum, and hump- 
back salmon, and the so-called salmon trout, and each and every species of the 
genus oncorhynchus commonly known as salmon. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5220.) 

DEFINITIONS. 

Sec. 16. The term " person or persons," when used in this act, shall be taken 
to include partnerships, associations, and corporations. The term " seine " in 
this act is intended to cover all forms of nets known as seines, purse seines, or 
purse nets, trawls, beam trawls, stow nets, drag nets, smelt drag bag nets, bag 
nets, draw nets, reef nets, and dredge nets. (See Keni. & Bal., sec. 5224.) 

PUGET SOUND DEFINED. 

Sec. 17. Wherever the term " Puget Sound " occurs in this act it shall be 
construed to include all tidewaters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the tide- 
waters of Georgia Strait, the tidewaters of Washington Sound, the tidewaters 
of Puget Sound, and all other tidewaters emptying into the same, and all the 
bays, inlets, and estuaries thereof. (See Rem. & Bal., sees. 5195, 5228.) 

IGulf of Georgia part of Puget Sound. (State ex rel. Alaska Packers' Assn. 
v. Crawford, 13 Wash., 633.) Fishing locations within ebb and flow of tide 
in Snohomish River are in the waters of Puget Sound ; * * * an estuary 
being that portion of the low r er course of a river subject to tides. (Vail v. 
McGuire, 50 Wash., 187.)] 

DISTRICTS DEFINED. 

Sec. 18. For all purposes necessary for the administration of this act, the 
several portions of the State shall be divided into four districts, as follows: 

(1) The Puget Sound district, which shall consist of Puget Sound, as by this 
act defined, and its tributaries. 

(2) The Columbia River district, which shall consist of all the waters of the 
Columbia River and its tributaries within the confines of this State. 

(3) The Grays Harbor district, which shall consist of all the waters of Grays 
Harbor and its tributaries and the Pacific Ocean within 3 miles of the shore 
line north of the south entrance of Grays Harbor and south of Cape Flattery, 
and all the rivers and streams emptying therein. 

(4) The Willapa Harbor district, which shall consist of the waters of Willapa 
Harbor and its tributaries, the Pacific Ocean within 3 miles of the shore line 
between the south entrance of Grays Harbor and North Head, and all the rivers 
and streams emptying therein. 

[The court will take judicial notice that the Snohomish River is a tributary 
to Pueet Sound and of the ebb and flow of the tide below the city of Snohomish. 
(Vail v. McGuire, 50 Wash., 187.) Commissioner can enforce provisions of 
fish law T as to residents of Oregon fishing in waters of Columbia River within 
jurisdiction of State of Washington. (Ops, Atty. Gen., 1913-14, p. 425.) See 
also section 116, this act.] 

FISHING WHERE PERMITTED. 

Sec. 19. The use of tile pound nets, traps, traps fished at both ends of lead, 
fish wheels, and other fixed appliances, purse nets, drag seines, and other seines 
for catching salmon, and the use of set nets and gill nets is hereby authorized 
in all the waters of this State except as prohibited by this act. (See Rem. & 
Bal.. sec. 5191.) 

FISHING — WHERE PROHIBITED — PUGET SOUND. 

Sec. 20. It shall be unlawful to construct, own, operate, or maintain any 
pound net, trap, fish wheel, or other fixed appliance for the purpose of catching 



114 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

salmon or other food fishes within any river or stream flowing into Puget Sonne! 
or within Puget Sound within a distance of 3 miles of the mouth of any river, 
measured by the most direct water course or within the part of Puget Sound 
known as Deception Pass or within one-half mile of the western entrance 
thereof or within any salt water at a greater depth than 65 feet at low tide. 

It shall be unlawful to use any purse net, purse seine, drag seine, or other 
like seine or net within 2 miles of the mouth of any such river, measured by the 
most direct water course, or within any such river. 

It shall be unlawful, except with hook and line, to take any of the food fishes 
mentioned in this act in the Skagit River above the Great Northern Railway 
bridge across the same at Mount Vernon and in the Snohomish River above the 
Snohomish wagon bridge or above the wagon bridge at Riverton in the 
Duwamish River, and in all other rivers and streams flowing into Pusjet Sound. 
(See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5183.) 

I The measurement to determine whether the act has been violated should be 
made over an all-water course and not in a straight line across the uplands. 
(Halleck v. Davis, 22 Wash., 393.) The term "rivers" as used in this section 
would include any stream of whatever size, having any substantial flow, to 
which salmon or other food fishes resort. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 1911-12, p. 149.)] 

CHAMBERS CREEK. 

Sec. 21. It shall be unlawful at any time to take any fish with any appliance 
whatsoever, except with hook and line, in Chambers Creek, in the county of 
Pierce, and within 1,500 feet of the Northern Pacific Railway bridge located 
across the mouth of said Creek. (See vol. 3, Rem. & Bal., sec. 51S7. ) 

WILLAPA HARBOR. 

Sec. 23. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon, except with hook 
and line, in any of the following tributaries of Willapa Harbor above tide- 
water in said rivers, viz : 

North River, Willapa River, south fork of Willapa River, Nasel River, Palix 
River, Nema River, Bear River. Cedar River, and Smith Creek, and for the 
purposes of (his act the head of tidewater shall be: 

On North River, where the north boundary line of section 23 of township 15 
north, range 10 west of the Willamette meridian crosses said river. 

On Willapa River, where Louderbacks Slough empties into the said Willapa 
River in the eastern portion of section 20, township 14 north, range 8 west of 
Willamette meridian. 

On the south fork of the Willapa River, the drawbridge of the Northern 
Pacific Railway Co., being the center of lots 8 and 11 of section 24, township 
14 north, range 9 west of the Willamette meridian. 

On the Nasel River at the gap in the main log boom. 

On Cedar River, the mouth of said river, or the line between townships 14 
and 15 north, ranges 10 and 11 west of the Willamette meridian. 

On the Palix River, where the south line of section 22, township 15 north, 
range 10 west of the Willamette meridian, crosses said river. 

On North Nema River, at the schoolhouse on lot 3 of section 22, township 
32 north, range 10 west of the Willamette meridian. 

On South Nema River, at what is known as Carruthers Landing, being on 
the east and west half section line extending through section 27, township 12 
north, range 10 west of the Willamette meridian. 

On Bear River, at Masnys Landing, or the half section line extending east 
and west through sections 7 and 8 of township 10 north, range 10 west of the 
Willamette meridian. 

On Smith Creek, at the mouth thereof, being where lots 1 and 2 of section 35, 
township 15 north of range 10 west of the Willamette meridian abut upon the 
entrance of Willapa Harbor. (See vol 3, Rem. & Bal., sec. 5187.) 

GRAYS HARBOR. 

Sec 24. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon, except with hook 
and line, in the following tributaries of Grays Harbor : 

In Cbehalis River, aboA r e point one-half mile below, the mouth of Wynooche 
River, and one-half mile above the mouth of the Humptulips River, and one- 
half mile above the mouth of the Elk River, and one-half mile above the mouth 
of Johns River. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 115 

From and after the passage Of this art it sliall be unlawful to erect any fish 
trap, pound net, or fish wheel in any of the streams emptying Into drays Earbor, 
Willapa Harbor, or any of the streams of these districts, as by this acl defined: 

Provided, lioirerer. The right to erect tisli traps, pound nets, or fish wheels on 
locations existing in said districts in 1!>14 is hereby recognized. (See vol. 3, 
Kern. ,\- BaL, sec. 5187.) 

COLUMBIA RIVER. 

Sec. 2.Y It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon, except with hook and 
line, in the Ralama River, Lewis River, Wind River, Little White Salmon River, 
Big White Salmon River, Wenatchee River, Methow River, Little Spokane 
River, Colville River, and Yakima River, and in the Columbia River within 1 
mile below the mouths of the above-named rivers. No fish trap shall be located 
on or within 3 miles below the mouth of Lewis River, but fishing with gill nets 
is permitted in the Columbia River to a point within 1 mile below the mouth of 
said rivers and a quarter of a mile out from where the same empties into the 
Columbia River. (See vol. 3, Rem. & Bal., sec. 51S7.) 

SET NET NOT FIXED APPLIANCE. 

Sec. 20. A set net is not a fixed appliance within the meaning of this act, hut 
it shall be unlawful to erect or maintain any set net within the limits of the 
end and lateral passage ways prescribed in this act for fixed appliances. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sees. 5183, 5193. 5216.) 

[Under prior acts a set net was held to be a fixed appliance. (State v. 
Yosgien, S2 Wash., 685. ) ] 

TRAP, POUND NET, AND SET NET LOCATION — HOW ACQUIRED. 

Sec. 27. Any person, firm, or corporation occupying or desiring to occupy any 
fishing location where it may be lawful' to construct a pound net, trap or set 
net in the waters of the State, shall cause such location to be accurately sur- 
veyed by a competent civil engineer, unless a survey thereof has already been 
made, in which event such existing survey may be used, and shall cause a 
location map to be made of such location from the actual survey thereof, which 
shall contain a plat and description of said fishing location sufficient for its 
ascertainment and identification on the premises. It sliall also contain a cer- 
tificate by the claimant, or by his agent or attorney, stating that he claims the 
fishing location shown thereon, specifying the date and number of the license 
under which the same is held and containing the post-office address of the 
claimant. Such map, with the certificate thereon, shall be filed in the office of 
the county auditor of the county in which such fishing location is situated, aud 
a duplicate copy thereof in the office of the commissioner. From and after 
the date of filing in the office of the county auditor such map sliall constitute 
full and complete notice that such location is owned, held, occupied, and claimed 
by the person, firm, or corporation designated thereon as the claimant. It 
shall he the duty of the county auditor and the commissioner in whose offices 
any such map may be offered for filing to receive and keep the same on file. 
They shall also keep an index to all such maps, showing the hour and date of 
filing, names of the claimants, and serial number of the maps, in the order filed, 
all of which shall be indorsed on the maps when filed. No informality or omis- 
sion on the part of such public officers shall impair or prejudice the right of 
any claimant of such fishing location. 

From and after filing such map the claimant of the location thereon shown, 
his heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, shall have the exclusive right 
to hold, occupy, and fish such location, to renew the license therefor, and to 
mortgage, sell and transfer the same during the time that he or they in other 
respects shall comply with the law pertaining thereto. 

It shall not be necessary to file any map or plat of any location heretofore 
made under existing laws in any case where any map has heretofore been filed : 
Provided, That all pound net. fish trap, set net, or other fishing locations hereto- 
fore made by locators or owners thereof in accordance with existing laws shall 
be unaffected and unimpaired by any of the provisions of this section, and any 
location legal when established shall continue valid under the provisions of 
this act, and the locators or owners of such previously established locations 
shall continue to occupy, own, hold, and enjoy the same, and may mortgage, 



116 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

sell, transfer, and lease the same, with the right to renew their licenses therefor 
in the same manner and with the same legal effect as though said locations 
had been established under the provisions of this act. Any person, firm, or 
corporation being the owner, holder, or occupant of any trap or pound net loca- 
tion in the Columbia River, ■ Grays Harbor, or Willapa Harbor, shall, within 
90 clays after this act takes effect, file with the auditor of the county in which 
their said locations are situated, a location map as hereinbefore provided in this 
section, and a copy of the same in the office of the commissioner. 

From and after filing such map the claimant of the location thereon shown, 
his heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns shall have the exclusive right 
to hold, occupy, and fish such location, to renew the license therefor, and to 
mortgage, sell, lease, and transfer the same during the time that he or they 
in other respects shall comply with the law pertaining thereto. ( See sec. 29 ; 
also Rem. & Bal., sees. 5212, 5214.) 

[Where location of a fishing trap was invalid by reason of site being occupied 
by a prior locator, such invalid location could not ripen into a valid location 
at the expiration of the prior locator's fishing license under which he fished 
that site. (White Crest Canning Co. v. Sims, 30 Wash., 374 ; Womer v. O'Brien, 
37 Wash., 9. ) Where the attempted location of a fishing site is invalid as against 
original locators thereon, it can not be valid as against anybody else. (White 
Crest Canning Co. v. Sims, supra.) A fishing site located in March but license 
never recorded, and subsequent locators in September find no piles or posts on 
site to indicate former location is deemed abandoned by first locators. (White 
Crest Canning Co. v. Sims, supra.) A locator failing in accurate survey, etc., of 
his location is not entitled to an injunction to protect his location ; same may be 
held only by continued compliance with statutory regulation. (Vail (<. McGuire, 
50 Wash., 187.) Site is open water when no trap has been located on a site 
prior to expiration of existing license. (Muller v. Apex Fish Co., 57 Wash., 
140.) Clerical error in description will not invalidate location where plat suf- 
ficiently identifies site. (Muller v. Apex Fish Co., supra.) A map sufficiently 
describes the location, within Rem. & Bal. Code, sec. 5214, which fixes upstream 
limit so a person would have no trouble in locating it; not necessary to de- 
scribe downstream limit. (Guinn v. Roelofs, 71 Wash., 343.)] 

DRAG SEINE LOCATIONS — HOW ACQUIRED. 

Sec. 28. Locations for drag seines may be made by driving a substantial stake 
or erecting a permanent monument at each end of the location claimed, and 
posting thereon the number of the license under which the same is operated. 
No drag seine location, the title to which is in the State, shall occupy a greater 
length of the shore line than twice the length of the seine covered by the license 
therefor. (See Rem. & Bal.. sec. 5214.) 

[Posting license number upon locator's own piles, driven upon the site in prior 
years, constitutes a literal compliance with the requirement that locations for 
nnund nets shall be indicated "by driving at least three substantial piles 
thereon," and posting the license number upon the terminal piles. Driving 
piles and posting notices thereon need not be concurrent. (Legoe v. Chicago 
Fishing Co., 24 Wash., 175.) A licensee, who is diligent but requires six weeks 
to perfect location, has priority over a subsequent locator, who has actual no- 
tice of attempted location, but comes more nearly conforming to requirements 
of the law. (Elwood v. Dickinson, 26 Wash.. 631.)] 

SET NET LOCATIONS — HOW ACQUIEED. 

Sec. 29. Locations for set nets may be made by erecting a permanent monu- 
ment near, or securely anchoring a buoy on the location claimed, upon which 
shall be posted the number of the license under which such net is operated. 
There shall be a lateral passageway of at least 300 feet and an end passagewy 
of 30 feet between all set nets. It shall be unlawful in the use and operation of 
a set net to create any artificial eddy or erect any structure or obstruction for 
such purpose. (See sec. 27; also Rem. & Bal., sees., 5193, 5214.) 

See note to section 28 this act. 

[Injunction will not issue to protect set net location in bed of stream as 
against riparian owner. (Wilson v. Prickett, 79 Wash., 89.)] 

FAILURE TO RENEW LICENSE. 

Sec. 30. The failure to renew the license or to have made lawful application 
therefor for any fish trap, pound net, fish wheel, or other fixed appliance in any 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 117 

of the waters of (his stale on the 1st day of April of any year shall constitute 
abandonment of the location. (Sec Rem. & Bal., sees. 5212, .~>214, •"•ji.">. ) 

[The abandonment of a fishing location does not preclude one from relocating 
thereon when no other rights have intervened. (Legoe r. Chicago Fishing Co., 
24 Wash., 175.) A private individual can not profit by the failure of a licensee 
until the State has declared a forfeiture of rights under his license. ( Hastings v. 
Anacortes Packing Co.. 20 Wash., 224.) A fishing location is not abandoned 15 
days before the expiration of the license, because of failure to construct a trap, 
when the fishing season covered by the license had not expired. ( Wonier v. 
O'Brien, 37 Wash., 9.) "Fishing season" applies only to waters where there 
are well-defined runs of salmon. (Gorman & Co. v. Andrews, 59 Wash., 394.) 
Where a license for a fish trap expires before any trap has been actually con- 
structed the place becomes open water, subject to the first proper location. ( Mul- 
ler v. Apex Fish Co., 57 Wash., 140.)] 

FIXED APPLIANCES — -COLUMBIA RIVER, WILLAPA HARBOR, AND GRAYS HARBOR HOW 

CONSTRUCTED. 

Sec 31. No lead of any pound net, trap, fish wheel, or other fixed appliance 
used for catching salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries, Willapa 
Harbor and its tributaries, and Grays Harbor and its tributaries shall exceed 
800 feet in length, and there shall be an end passageway of at least 30 feet and 
lateral passageway of at least 900 feet between all such pound nets, traps, fish 
wheels, or other fixed appliances. The lead of any pound net or trap may be 
extended to high-water mark only on the tidelands owned by the State, providing 
such extension does not exceed the length provided in this act. Should the 
locator or owner neglect to construct his appliances for two consecutive fishing 
seasons covered by this license, said location shall be deemed abandoned. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sec. 5194. ) 

[Complaint held defective wherein it did not state that purpose of fish trap 
erected in Columbia River was for catching salmon. ( State v. Tabell, 10 Wash., 
498.) A private individual may properly maintain an action to enjoin the con- 
struction and maintenance of a fish trap in a river when such trap causes special 
damages to plaintiff and others in the same class. (Morris r. Graham, 16 Wash., 
343.) Parties not permitted to obtain a location which excludes others from 
fishing in the same waters. (Morris r. Graham, supra ; Gile v. Basul. 38 Wash., 
212; Johansen v. Mulligan, 41 Wash., 379.) Where a fish trap encroaches upon 
the passageway of prior locations the latter are entitled to enjoin the main- 
tenance of such trap. (Johansen v. Mulligan, 41 Wash., 379.)] 

FIXED APPLIANCES IN PUGET SOUND — HOW CONSTRUCTED. 

Sec 32. No lead of any pound net or fish trap in Puget Sound shall exceed 
2.500 feet in length, and there shall be an end passageway of at least 600 feet and 
a lateral passageway of at least 2,400 feet between all pound nets, traps, and 
other fixed appliances. The lead of any pound net or trap may be extended to 
high-water mark on the tidelands owned by the State, or on other tidelands with 
the consent of the owners thereof: Provided, Such extension shall not exceed the 
length of the lead provided in this act. Should the locator or owner of any 
pound-net or fish-trap location fail to construct a fishing appliance thereon for 
four consecutive years, his location shall be deemed abandoned, even though he 
shall have complied in other respects with the laws pertaining thereto. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sees. 5193, 5194, 5212.) 

[Under Laws of 1897, page 218, traps and pound nets were the only fixed ap- 
pliances recognized for which licenses might be issued in Puget Sound. (Ger- 
hard v. Worrell, 20 Wash., 492.) Where plaintiff purchased at a receiver's sale 
one of two fish traps owned and operated by defendant, and with actual knowledge 
that the two locations were within the lateral limits allowed by statute, rule of 
caveat emptor applies. ( Fall & Sockeye Fish Co. r. Roberts Fishing, etc., Co., 24 
Wash., 630.) Though combined length of two contiguous nets does not exceed 
2.500 feet, there must be an end passageway of at least 600 feet between them. 
(Fidalgo Island Canning Co. r. Womer, 29 Wash., 503; see Johansen v. Mul- 
ligan, 41 Wash., 379.) 

PASSAGEWAYS HOW DETERMINED. 

Sec 33. For the purpose of determining end passageways, base lines shall 
be drawn at right angles with the general course of locations first originally 

46232— pt 2—16 6 



118 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

established and intersecting the ends thereof, and the end passageways shall 
be measured at right angles from such base lines: Provided, however, This 
section shall not affect any location lawfully existing under previous statutes, 
and any and all such fishing appliances may be maintained upon such existing 
locations as though this act had not been passed, or they may be changed to 
conform to the provisions hereof as to end passageways at the option of the 
location owner and holder thereof. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5194.) 

[Point Roberts Fishing Co. v. George & Barker Co. (28 Wash., 200). Fidalgo 
Island Canning Co. v. Womer (29 Wash., 503).] 

SET NETS, PUGET SOUND — HOW CONSTRUCTED. 

Sec. 34. It shall be unlawful to fish for salmon in Puget Sound with any set 
net of greater length than 500 feet, or in the form of a pound net, or with pots 
or hearts connected therewith, or that is used or held in any other way than 
in a substantially straight line. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5193.) 

[Johansen v. Mulligan (41 Wash., 379).] 

LENGTH OF APPLIANCES IN EIVEES LIMITED. 

Sec. 35. No fishing appliance or device of any kind whatsoever, either by 
lead or any part thereof, shall occupy more than one-third the width of the 
waters of any stream or river. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5214.) 

See second and third notes to section 31 this act. 

See notes to section 87 this act. 

[The willful and wanton destruction of fish traps which did not impede navi- 
gation renders the wrongdoers liable in damages to the owner of the trap. 
(Fowler v. Harrison, 39 Wash., 617.)] 

NETS SIZE MESH. 

Sec. 36. It shall be unlawful to use any pound net, trap, fish wheel, or other 
fixed appliance for catching salmon or other food fish with .meshes under 3 
inches, stretch measure. It shall be unlawful to operate in any of the waters 
of Puget Sound any purse seine, drag seine, or other like seine or net of a 
greater length than 500 feet with meshes less than 2\ inches stretch measure, 
during the year 1915. and after January 1, 1916, with meshes less than 3 inches 
stretch measure. It shall also be unlawful to operate in any of the said waters 
any gill net of a greater length than 500 feet with meshes less than 5 inches 
stretch measure. 

It shall be unlawful to use any gill net more than 1,200 feet in length or 
more than 36 meshes deep in Willapa Harbor or any of its tributaries. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sees. 5193-5194.) 

[Government tide tables are competent evidence for purpose of determining 
depth of water. (Cherry Point Fish Co. v. Nelson, 25 Wash., 558.)] 

CLOSED SEASON FOR SMELT AND HERRING. 

Sec. 37. It shall be unlawful to catch or fish for smelt or herring with any 
purse, drag, or like seine of less than lj-inch mesh, stretch measure, between 
8 p. m. and 6 a. m. of any day. 

It shall be unlawful to catch or fish for smelt or herring in the waters of 
Puget Sound with any appliance between 4 o'clock p. m. Friday and 4 o'clock 
a. m. Sunday of each week. 

APPLIANCES USED UNLAWFULLY MAY BE CONFISCATED. 

Sec 40. Any fishing appliance or part thereof found in the waters of this 
State wherein the same are prohibited, the same being placed therein for the 
purpose of illegal fishing, is hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be 
subject to abatement as a public nuisance, and it shall be the duty of the com- 
missioner to enforce the provisions of this section ; and any and all appliances 
used in violation of any of the provisions of this act, viz, boats, traps, nets, 
fish wheels, or other appliances, shall be subject to execution for the payment 
of any fines imposed on the owner thereof. Such appliance may be seized by 
the commissioner and may be forfeited to the State, and the superior courts 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 119 

Of t lie State of Washington shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all such cases. 
(See Rem. & Ral., sees. 5184, 5185.) 

[An "air-line" lead is not an unlawful appliance if it complies with the 
laws in regard to its length and the depth of water in which it is placed, and 
a separate license need not be obtained for same if used as a part of one of 
the enumerated appliances for which licenses are issued. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 
1913-14, p. 456.) Prosecuting attorney to commence proceeding in superior 
court of county having jurisdiction for forfeiture under this section. (Ops. 
Atty. Gen., 1913-14, p. 397.)] 

FISHING WITHOUT LICENSE PROHIBITED. 

Sec. 41. It shall be unlawful to catch, take, or fish for food fish with any 
appliance or by any means whatsoever, except with hook and line, commonly 
called angling or trolling, unless license so to do has first been obtained from 
the commissioner. 

The presence in any of the waters of this State of any craft of any nature 
whatever equipped with any of the appliances required to be licensed by the 
laws of this State for the taking of fish, or of any fishing appliances for which 
licenses are required, shall be prima facie evidence that the owners thereof 
are engaged in fishing. 

Any person who shall engage in fishing with any appliance whatsoever with- 
out having first obtained a license or made lawful application therefor shall 
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and the commissioner is hereby authorized 
to seize said appliance, and the same shall be confiscated to the State. (See 
Rem. & Ral., sees. 5191, 5215.) 

[There is no private right or privilege to take fish in waters of the State 
except as granted by the State. ( State r. Tice, 69 Wash., 403 ; Cawsey v. Rrickey, 
82 Wash., 653.) A person must obtain a license to use any appliances for 
which the laws provide a license, although such appliance is to be used only 
for fishing for home consumption. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 1913-14, p. 221.) A license 
to use an appliance is independent of the location ; hence the same appliance 
may be transferred to a new location upon abandonment of the old. (Ops. 
Atty. Gen., 1913-14, p. 520.) See also sees. 27 and 30 this act.] 

INDIANS FISHING ON RESERVATIONS. 

Sec. 42. Nothing in this act shall prevent any Indian from taking fish at any 
time without a license for the consumption of himself or family with a drag 
seine not more than 300 feet in length or with a set net, in any of the salt 
waters bordering any Indian reservation and within one-half mile thereof, or 
with a set net extending not more than one-third across the waters of any 
river or stream flowing through or bordering on any such reservation and 
within 5 miles of the boundaries thereof: Provided, however, That this section 
shall not apply to the Nooksack River. (See Rem. & Ral., sec. 5191.) 

[See note to sec. 58 this act.] 

[Held, That provision that " any Indian residing in this State " may take 
salmon " at any time for the use of himself and family " applied only to Indians 
who have not assumed the duties and obligations of citizenship. (State v. 
Lewis, 45 Wash., 475.)] 

LICENSES — TO WHOM NOT ISSUED. 

Sec. 43. No license for taking or catching salmon or other food or shell fish 
required by this act shall be issued to any person who is not a citizen of the 
United States of the age of 18 years or over unless such person has declared his 
intention to become a citizen and is and has been an actual resident of the State 
for one year immediately preceding the application for such license; nor shall 
any license be issued to a corporation unless it is authorized to do business in 
this State. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the issuance 
of licenses to Indians, providing such applicants possess the qualifications of 
residence hereinbefore required, nor prevent the renewal of licenses for fixed 
appliances by persons now holding the same. (See Rem. & Ral., sees. 5191, 
5204.) 

[Provisions in old laws regarding citizenship reconciled in Walker v. Stone 
(17 Wash., 57S). Legislature has power to grant fishing license. (Walker v. 



120 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Stone, supra.) The constitutional provision (art. 2, sec. 33) relating to corpora- 
tions places no restriction upon the granting of fishing licenses to such corpora- 
tions, since the license confers no title to real property. (Hastings v. Anacortes 
Packing Co., 29 Wash., 224.) A fishing company which has its place of business 
outside of the State during certain seasons of the year is not a nonresident 
where it has otherwise fully complied with the requirements of our corporation 
laws, nor would such fact justify the seizure of its fishing site by a stranger. 
(Hastings v. Anacortes Packing Co., supra.) A Federal permit is not a pre- 
requisite to the issuance of a State license for a fish trap. (Muller v. Apex 
Fish Co., 57 Wash., 140.) The old law making it unlawful for a alien "to fish 
for or take for sale or profit any salmon, sturgeon, or other food fish " did not 
apply to crabs or shellfish. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 1913-14, p. 387.) ] 

TACT OE CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCE HOW DETERMINED. 

Sec. 44. When required by the commissioner, any person desiring to fish for 
any food fish in any of the waters of this State may go before a county clerk 
of any county of this State or the commissioner and furnish satisfactory proof 
of his citizenship, or of the fact that he has declared his intention to become 
such, and file his own affidavit and the affidavit of two or more persons to the 
effect that he now is and for a year prior thereto has been an actual bona fide 
resident of this State, and thereupon such clerk or commissioner shall issue to 
him a certificate briefly reciting those facts, and thereafter in any prosecution 
against such person for a violation of the provisions of this act such certificate 
or a duly authenticated copy of the records in the office of the clerk or commis- 
sioner relative thereto shall be prima facie evidence of his citizenship and resi- 
dence as in this act required. But in all prosecutions under this act the burden 
of proof shall be upon the defendant to establish the fact of his citizenship and 
residence. But nothing herein contained shall delay the issuance to any ap- 
plicant of a license for a fish trap, fish wheel, or pound net which are required 
by the provisions of this act to be issued on the 1st day of April of each year. 
(See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5204.) 

LICENSES HOW TRANSFERRED. 

Sec. 46. Any license may be assigned or transferred to any person or cor- 
poration entitled to hold a license under the provisions of this act, and notice 
shall be given of such transfer or assignment within 30 days from the date 
thereof to the commissioner, who shall indorse the date of such notice on the 
license. If such notice be not given, the license shall be void. And any as- 
signee of a license for operating any such appliance who shall fail within 30 
days to give notice to the commissioner of the assignment of such license is 
guilty of a misdemeanor. (See Rem. & Bal.. sec. 5191.) 

(Time extended for notification of commissioner from 20 to 30 days.) 
[Where notice is not given of an attempted transfer of a fishing license and 
rights thereunder, the person attempting to transfer is guilty of a misdemeanor, 
under Laws, 1897, page 215, and such attempted transfer amounts to an 
abandonment. (Gerhard v. Worrell, 20 Wash., 492.)] 

BLANK LICENSES HOW PROVIDED. 

Sec. 47. The commissioner shall prepare in blank and consecutively number 
all licenses required under the provisions of this act, all of which shall expire 
at the close of the 31st day of March following their issuance, and shall be 
renewed annually thereafter upon application and payment of license fees 
required by this act. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5191.) 

(Duty of preparing blank licenses devolves upon fish commissioner, formerly 
duty of State auditor.) 

FISHERIES FUND. 

Sec. 48. All license fees and fines collected under the provisions of this act, 
unless otherwise provided herein, shall be paid into the State treasury and 
placed in a fund to be known as the fisheries fund, which shall not be used 
for any purpose other than for the propagation, protection, and perpetuation of 
food and shell fishes and the administraiton and enforcement of the laws 
relating thereto. All unexpended balance thereof shall continue in such fund 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 121 

unless otherwise disposed of by the legislature. The commissioner is directed 

to expend such funds, as nearly as may be, in the localities from which they 
are collected. (See Hem. iV Bal., sees. 5180, 5218, 5219.) 

REMITTANCES TO STATE TREASURER. 

SEC. 49. All moneys collected by the commissioner shall he deposited in a 
bank, to be designated by the state fish commission, which bank shall give a 
surety bond to the State of Washington in a sum designated by the fish com- 
mission, said bond to contain such conditions and provisions as may be required 
by it. 

The commissioner shall make daily remittances to the State treasurer of all 
moneys collected by him from any source whatever, together with a statement 
showing from whence the moneys are derived. A duplicate of this statement 
shall be sent to the State auditor. 

EXPENSES. 

Sec. 50. All expenses incurred under the provisions of this chapter shad he 
{indited by the State auditor, upon bills being presented, properly certified by 
the fish commissioner, and the said auditor shall from time to time, draw war- 
rants upon the State treasurer for the amount. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5163.) 

LICENSES HOW ISSUED, FEES THEREFOR. 

Sec. 51. Licenses herein required shall he issued to any qualified person or 
corporation by the commissioner upon application therefor and the payment 
of the license fees herein required : 

For each pound-net or fish-trap license for taking salmon at both ends on 
Puget Sound, $100. 

For each pound-net or fish-trap license on Puget Sound for the taking of 
salmon, $50. 

For each first-class pound net or fish-trap license for the taking of salmon on 
the Columbia River, $25. 

For each second-class pound net or trap license on the Columbia River, $15. 

A first-class trap is hereby defined to be a trap on the Columbia River that 
during the preceding season caught fish of the value of $1,000 or more, and a 
second-class trap a trap on the Columbia River that caught during the preced- 
ing season fish of the value less than $1,000. 

For each pound net or fish-trap license for taking salmon in Willapa Harbor 
and Grays Harbor, $15. 

For each brush-weir license for the taking of smelt and herring, $25. 

For each stationary fish wheel license for the taking of salmon, $35. 

For each scow fish wheel license for the taking of salmon, $25. 

For each purse seine license, $25 ; no purse seine shall be of greater length 
than 1,800 lineal feet measured on cork line when wet. 

For each gill net license for the taking of salmon on Puget Sound of a length 
not to exceed 600 feet, $5 ; and for each additional lineal foot in length, 1 cent ; 
no gill net shall be operated on Puget Sound of a greater length than 3,000 feet. 

For each gill net license for the taking of salmon on the Columbia River, 
Grays Harbor, and Willapa Harhor, $7.50. 

For each reef net, $5. 

For each drag seine license, $3 cents per lineal foot. 

For each set net license for the taking of salmon, $3.75. 

Any person may use a jigger in the taking of smelt or herring for the use of 
himself and family without any license therefor. 

For each hag net license for the taking of smelt or herring, $1. 

For each smelt drag-bag net on Puget Sound, $1. 

For each license for beam trawl, $10. 

For each license for set lines having more than 100 books, $1. 

The license issued by the commissioner for the appliances hereinbefore men- 
tioned shall specify the district wherein the license is to be used and no license 
for one district shall be used in another. 

For each license to take crabs, $1. 

For each license to take clams and mussels, $1. 

For each license to take oysters from the State reserves for seed purposes 
under regulations to be promulgated annually by the State fish commission, $5. 



122 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

For each person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of buying and 
selling, packing, and preserving or otherwise dealing in trout or other food fish 
obtained from private hatcheries of this State, $2.50. 

For each private trout hatchery, $25. 

For each retail fish dealer, a license of $1. 

For each wholesale dealer in fish and for each person engaged in freezing, 
salting, smoking, kippering, preserving in ice, or otherwise, a license of $10. 

For each fish broker not operating as a packer or canner, a license of $50. 

For each person using scows, boats, or other water craft in buying, handling, 
or transporting food fish, except persons, firms, and corporations operating can- 
neries, packing or curing establishments that pay an annual license fee to the 
State of Washington, where the fish are disposed of for canning, curing, pre- 
serving, or selling within the State of Washington, a license of $1. 

For each person, firm, or corporation using scows, boats, or other water craft 
in the buying of fish on the Columbia River for each scow, boat, or other water 
craft, a license fee of $50 ; this requirement shall not apply to scow boats or 
other water craft used in buying fish for and transporting fish to canneries 
and packing plants that pay an annual license fee to the State of Washington 
or Oregon, of not less than $100. 

Every person, firm, or corporation engaged in canning salmon, shell or other 
food fish shall procure a license from the commissioner before commencing the 
season's packing, and shall on or before the 15th day of November of each year 
pay to the commissioner as an annual license fee for all salmon, shell or other 
food fish packed by him subsequent to the 31st day of March of each year and 
prior to November 15 of each year, and the 31st day of March of each year shall 
pay to the commissioner for all salmon, shell or other food fish packed by him 
subsequent to November 15 and prior to the 31st day of March of each year, 
2 cents per case for each case of steel-head, blue-back, Quinault, or sockeye 
salmon, and 1 cent for each case of other varieties of salmon, except that he 
shall pay for each case of Chinook salmon packed on the Columbia River prior 
to the 26th day of August of each year, 4 cents per case, and for each case of 
Chinook salmon packed on the Columbia River after the 26th clay of August 
of each year, 2 cents per case ; for each case of clams, clam nectar, crabs, shad, 
shrimp, and other food and shell fish, 1 cent per case. 

For the purpose of this act a case of fish is defined to consist of 48 1-pound 
cans, bottles, or their equivalent in weight. The owner or licensee of any can- 
nery before beginning the operation of the same in any year and at the time of 
making application for his license shall execute a good and sufficient bond to 
the commissioner in such sum as he may require, conditioned that he will pay 
or cause to be paid to the commissioner the license fees or charges for salmon, 
shad, crab, clam, and other food and shell fish packed by him at the time and in 
accordance with the requirements of the foregoing section, such bond to contain 
such other provisions as may be required by the commissioner. 

Each person, firm, or corporation " buying, selling, or otherwise dealing 
in salmon and other food fish at wholesale caught in the State of Washington, 
shall pay to the commissioner on or before the 15th day of November of each 
year $1 per gross ton for each ton or fraction thereof so bought, handled, pre- 
served, or cured during the preceding calendar year: Provided, That no person, 
firm, or corporation engaged in the canning business shall be required to pay 
such tax upon any fish caught or bought and canned by them ; and no person, 
firm, or corporation shall be required to pay such tax upon any fish caught and 
sold by him. Nor shall such tax or charge be paid upon any fish ultimately 
canned, nor shall more than one tonnage tax be collected upon any particular 
quantity of fish. 

Every person engaged in buying fish except for canning purposes shall obtain 
a permit from the commissioner for each representative of such buyer. And 
each person, firm, or corporation so buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in 
salmon and other food and shell fish at wholesale, or freezing, salting, smoking, 
kippering, preserving in ice, curing, mild curing, or otherwise shall, before 
beginning operations in any year first obtain a license from the commissoner, 
and at the time of the application for such license shall execute a good and suffi- 
cient bond in such sum as may be required and subject to the approval of the 
commissioner, conditioned that on or before the 10th day of the following month 
they will pay, or cause to be paid, to the commissioner the said license fee or 
charge for all salmon and other food and shell fish handled during the preceding 
month. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 123 

For the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the license fee required in each 
instance the commissioner shall determine the class and character of each 
appliance. 

All Rill-net licenses issued by the State of Oregon shall be valid in the con- 
current waters of the Columbia River in this State. The commissioner when 
issuing licenses for the Columbia River district shall furnish to the fisheries 
department of Oregon the names of all licensees and the number of their licenses. 

Every person, firm, or corporation operating in the Puget Sound, Willapa 
Harbor, or Grays Harbor districts any of the fishing appliances hereinbefore 
mentioned (except gill nets, set nets, and drag seines), and every person, firm, 
or corporation operating in the Columbia River district any of such fishing 
appliances (except gill nets and set nets), which by the terms of this act are 
required to be licensed, shall, in addition to the license fees by this act provided, 
pay to the State for the food and shell fish taken from the waters thereof, as 
follows : 

For each 1,000 or fraction thereof of Chinook salmon caught in the Columbia 
River prior to the 26th day of August of each year, at the rate of ,$5 per 
thousand ; and for Chinook salmon caught in the Columbia River after the 26th 
and for tyee, king, black mouth, or spring salmon, at the rate of $3 per thousand. 
For each 1.000 or fraction thereof of Chinook, tyee, king, black mouth, or spring 
salmon in Willapa Harbor, Grays Harbor, and Puget Sound, at the rate of $3 
per thousand. 

For each 1,000 or fraction thereof of steelhead salmon, at the rate of $3 per 
thousand. 

For each 1,000 or fraction thereof of sockeye or blue-back salmon, at the rate 
of $1.50 per thousand. 

For each 1,000 or fraction thereof of silverside or Cohoe salmon, chum or fall 
salmon, at the rate of $1 per thousand. For each 1.000 or fraction thereof of 
humpback or pink salmon at the rate of 50 cents per thousand. 

For each 100 pounds or fraction thereof of smelt, herring, or shad, 3 cents. 

For each 100 pounds or fraction thereof of shrimp, 15 cents. 

For each sturgeon, 7+ cents. 

For each gross of crabs, 10 cents. 

For each ton of clams, gross weight in shells, 75 cents. (See Rem. & Bal., 
sees. 5176, 5178, 5211, 5233, 5248.) 

[Under Laws 1893, page 15. a license to fish authorized the licensee to fish in 
any of the waters of the Columbia River and Puget Sound over which the State 
had jurisdiction. (State ex rel. Curry v. Crawford, 14 Wash., 373; Morris v. 
Graham, 16 Wash., 343.) Restaurant is a consumer, rather than a dealer, and 
requires no license under section 517S, Rem. & Bal. Code. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 
1913-14, p. 260.) Canneries required to procure dealer's license if they handle 
fish for other purposes than canning. (Ops. Atty. Gen.. 1913-14, p. 246.) Fish- 
ermen who sell catch in same form as when taken from water do not require 
dealer's license. (See provision in this regard in section 51 this act.) (Ops. 
Atty. Gen., 1913-14, p. 30S.) Cannery men catching their own fish come under 
ruling regarding fishermen. (Id.) (Dealer's license is an occupation tax, and 
all persons handling the same fresh fish are liable for the tax in their various 
capacities, subject to the rulings quoted above. (Id.) Japanese entitled to retail 
dealer's license. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 1911-12, p. 250.) Under the old law wherein 
fees for cannery men were based on previous season's catch, and a specific fee 
was required in advance for a new cannery, a cannery was considered a new 
cannery upon change of ownership. (Ops. Atty. Gen.. 1913-14, p. 28.) License 
fees determined on the number of thousand fish caught are determined by frac- 
tions thereof also. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 1911-12, p. 175.) ] 

REPORTS TO COMMISSIONER. 

Sec. 52. Every owner of any fishing appliance which by the terms of this act 
is required to be licensed shall report to the commissioner under oath on blanks 
1 > be furnished by the commissioner, upon request, on the first day of March. 
July, and November of each year for the four months preceding the date on 
which the report is made, stating the number of salmon, species stated separately, 
the number of crabs, sturgeon, pounds of smelt, herring, shrimps, clams, and 
shad and other food fish caught during the preceding four months' period, to- 
gether with the name of the persons, firm, or corporation to whom such fish were 
sold, with the number or quantity delivered to each purchaser, and shall at the 



124 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

same time remit the license charges and the additional fees as by this act pro- 
vided ; and every person, firm, or corporation engaged in preserving, salting, 
smoking, kippering, mild curing, curing, freezing, preserving in ice or otherwise, 
and in buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in food and shell fish caught within 
the waters of this State as wholesalers or retailers either as principal, agent, or 
employee shall on the same date and for the same period make reports to the 
commissioner stating the quantity in pounds of all fish preserved or cured and 
all purchases and sales made during the preceding period for which the report 
5s made, the varieties stated separately, together with the name of the person, 
persons, firms, or corporations from whom purchased and the place from which 
the fish were taken and the appliance with which the same were taken, and at 
the same time shall remit to the commissioner the license charges and additional 
charges as provided by this act ; and any person, firm, or corporation who shall 
fail to make the reports in this paragraph provided and at the same time make 
payments of the amounts of money due the State shall be guilty of a gross mis- 
demeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than 
$500, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or 
by both such fine and imprisonment, and the amounts owing by any such persons 
for license charges and additional charges shall become and constitute a first 
lien on the fishing appliances of any such person and also a lien on the real and 
personal property of the person owing such sum or sums from and after a 
notice of such lien on behalf of the State shall have been filed in the office of 
the county auditor in which the person owing such amount or amounts shall 
reside ; the notice of lien to be filed by the commissioner shall be sufficient if it 
shall state the amount for which the lien is claimed and the person owing the 
same. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5177.) 

[An applicant for a fishing license under laws, 1893, page 15, is entitled to a 
license for one year, dating from the time of his application. (State ex rel. 
Curry v. Crawford, 14 Wash., 373.) Failure to make report under old law 
constituted misdemeanor. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 1913-14, p. 540.)] ' 

LICENSE NUMBER AND LIGHTS TO BE DISPLAYED. 

Sec. 53. Each fixed appliance for taking food fish shall have displayed thereon 
in a conspicuous place in black figures not less than 6 inches in length, painted 
on a white ground, the license number under which the same is operated. 

Each gill net and set net used for the purpose of taking food fish shall have 
branded on the corks at each end of such net, in figures not less than one-half 
inch in length, the license number under which the same is operated. 

Each boat or vessel used to operate any seine or net for food fish shall have 
displayed upon the bow thereof in black figures not less than 6 inches in length, 
painted on a white ground, the license number under which such seine or net is 
operated, preceded by a capital " W." Each pound net or trap on the Columbia 
River, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Harbor shall between sunset and sunrise 
conspicuously display a bright light. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5192.) 

CLOSED SEASON — PUGET SOLTKD. 

Sec. 54. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon except with hook and 
line in Puget Sound and in any of the rivers and streams emptying into it 
between the hours of 4 o'clock p. m. on Friday and 4 o'clock a. m. Sunday of 
each week of the months of July and August of each year, except with gill and 
set nets as herein provided. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon 
with gill or set nets in any of said waters between the hours of 6 o'clock a. m. 
Saturday and 6 o'clock p. m. Sunday of each week of July and August of each 
year. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon, except with hook and line, 
in any of the waters of Puget Sound or any river or any stream flowing into 
the same north of a line extending from Brace Point, in King County, to Point 
Southworth, in Kitsap County, and north of a line extending from Foulweather 
Bluff, in Kitsap County, to Tala Point, in Jefferson County, from November 10 
to December 10, both dates inclusive, in each year ; and it shall be unlawful to 
take or fish for salmon in the tributary thereof known as Hood Canal and in 
any river or stream flowing into the same south of the lines above described 
between the 20th day of November in each year and the 1st day of January of 
the year following,- both dates inclusive ; and it shall be unlawful to take or 
fish for salmon, except with hook and line, in Caffs Inlet or any of the waters 
southerlv and westerly thereof, or in any of the rivers or streams emptying 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 125 

into such waters; and for the purposes of this act such waters are bounded as 
follows: Beginning at Gordon Point in Pierce County, and running thence north- 
westerly to Hyde Point, on McNeils Island; thence northeasterly to Gibson 
Point, on Fox Island; thence northwesterly along the south shore of Fox Island 
to Green Point, in Pierce County, between the loth day of Novemher of each 
year and the 15th day of April of the year following, both dates inclusive; and 
it shall he unlawful to take or fish for salmon in any of the waters hetween 
the waters bounded and descrihed in the preceding clause and a line beginning 
at Brace Point, in King County, and running thence westerly to Point South- 
worth, in Kitsap County, or in any of the rivers or streams emptying into such 
waters, hetween the 1st day of January and the 1st day fo Fehruary, both 
dates inclusive. And it shall he unlawful to take or tish for salmon, except with 
hook and line, in any of the said descrihed waters, or in any of the waters of 
Puget Sound, or in any of the rivers or streams tlowing into such waters, 
between the 1st day of March and the 15th day of April, both dates inclusive, 
of each year. The commissoner shall designate by the erection of monuments 
and signs all of the above-mentioned boundary points. 

In the event that the Dominion of Canada or the Province of British Colum- 
bia shall enact and enforce laws prohibiting the taking of sock-eye salmon 
above the Westminster Bridge at all times and in Georgia Strait and all the 
waters of the Eraser River and its tributaries between the 25th day of August 
and the 15th day of September of each year, then it shall be unlawful to take 
or fish for sock-eye salmon in any of the waters of Puget Sound between the 
25th day of August and the 15th day of September, both dates inclusive, of 
each year, and any sock-eye salmon taken between the last-named dates in the 
waters of Puget Sound shall be liberated, and nothing in this paragraph of this 
. section shall be construed to prevent any person, firm, or corporation from oper- 
ating its fishing appliances for the catching of other varieties of salmon between 
the last-named dates. 

If the Province of British Columbia or the Dominion of Canada shall ftro- 
mbit and prevent the taking of salmon in Georgia Strait and the Fraser River 
during a 48-hour weekly period in each even-numbered year, beginning at 6 
o'clock p. m. Friday and ending not earlier than 6 o'clock p. m. Sunday, then 
and in that event it shall be unlawful to take or fish for sock-eye salmon by 
any means whatever, except with hook and line, in any of the waters of that 
portion of Puget Sound last described between the hours of 8 o'clock p. m. 
Thursday and 8 o'clock p. m. Saturday of each week in each even-numbered 
year. In the event that this proviso becomes effective and during the years 
while in effect it shall supersede and render inoperative the 36-hour closed 
period in this section first provided as to and in the waters above described. 

If it shall be adjudicated that the foregoing proviso be unconstitutional and 
invalid for any reason such adjudication of invalidity of such proviso or any 
part of this act shall not affect the validity of the act as a whole or any oart 
thereof. (See Rem. & Bal., sees. 51S3, 5186.) 

[Gulf of Georgia held to be part of Puget Sound. (State ex. rel. Alaska 
Packers' Ass'n v. Crawford, 13 Wash., 633.) Laws regulating the fishing for 
salmon and making a different closed season in different waters of the State 
are not unconstitutional as class legislation or arbitrary or unreasonable, as 
they affect equally and impartially all persons similarly situated. (State v. 
Tice, 69 Wash., 403.)] 

CERTAIN NETS PROHIBITED SKAGIT RIVER — PUGET SOUND. 

Sec. 55. It shall be unlawful to use any gill net, seine, or other net the 
meshes of which are less than Si inches, stretched measure, in the Skagit 
River between July 1 and September 1, both dates inclusive, of each year. 

It shall be unlawful to use any drag seine, purse seine, gill net, set net, or 
other like seine or net the meshes of which are less than 3 inches, stretched 
measure, in Puget Sound for any purpose whatsoever, during the months of 
May. June, and July. (See sec. 36, ch. 31, this act; Rem. & Bal., sec. 5183.) 

CLOSED SEASON, COLUMBIA RIVER. 

Sec. 56. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon or sturgeon in the 
Columbia River, its tributaries, and in any of the waters or sloughs thereof 
west of the north and south line between sections 14 and 15, township 2 north, 
range 15 east of the Willamette meridian and within 3 miles outside the mouth 



126 ALASKA FISHEKIES. 

of the Columbia River by any means whatever between 12 o'clock noon on the 
1st day of March and 12 o'clock noon on the 1st day of May and between 12 
o'clock noon on the 25th day of August and 12 o'clock noon on the 10th day of 
September and between 6 o'clock p. m. on Saturday of each week and 6 o'clock 
p. m. of the Sunday following from the 1st day of May to the 25th day of Au- 
gust, both dates inclusive, of each year. 

It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon or sturgeon in the Columbia 
River and any of its tributaries above the north and south line between sec- 
tions 14 and 15, township 2 north, range 15 east of the Willamette meridian 
by any means whatever between 12 o'clock noon on the 15th day of March and 
12 o'clock noon on the 1st day of June and between 12 o'clock noon on the 25th 
day of August and 12 o'clock noon on the 10th day of September. 

It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon in the Snake River and any 
of its tributaries by any means whatever in any year between 12 o'clock noon 
on the 1st day of April and 12 o'clock noon on the 1st day of June and between 
12 o'clock noon on the 1st day of August and 12 o'clock noon on the 5th day 
of September of each year. ( See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5187. ) 

[See notes to sec. 54, this act.] 

CLOSED SEASON FOB GRAYS HAKBOB AND WILLAPA HABBOB. 

Sec. 57. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon in Grays Harbor or 
Willapa Harbor or in any of the rivers or streams flowing into the same between 
the 15th day of March and the 15th day of April and between the 1st day of 
December and the 1st day of January, all dates inclusive, in each year. (See 
Rem. & Bal. r sec. 5187.) 

[See note to sec. 54, this act.] 

EIGHT TO TAKE FISH JOB SALE LIMITED TO CITIZENS. 

Sec. 58. It shall be unlawful for any person to fish or take for sale or profit 
any salmon or other food or shellfish in any of the rivers or waters of this 
State or over which it has concurrent jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases 
unless such person be a citizen of the United States or has declared his inten- 
tion to become such and is and has been for 12 months immediately prior to the 
time he engages in such business an actual resident of this State or an adjoin- 
ing State, but this section shall. not apply to Indians. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 
5203 ; also, see sec. 43, ch. 31, this act. ) 

[Under treaty of June 9, 1855, right reserved to Yakima Indians to enjoy 
all fishing privileges theretofore enjoyed. United States and Others v. Frank 
Taylor, 3 Wash. Ter., 88.] 

CLOSED SEASON, STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA. 

Sec. 59. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon between the 1st clay 
of June and the 1st day of July, both dates inclusive, by any means whatsoever 
in the waters of the Pacific Ocean within a distance of 3 miles of the west 
shore of Clallam County and west of a line drawn from Tatoosh Light in 
Clallam County to Oarjtnanah Light on Vancouver Island, constituting the 
headlands marking the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and it shall be 
unlawful for any person to bring into the State of Washington any salmon 
caught west of Clallam County and the line above prescribed between the 
dates mentioned in this section : Provided, however, That this section shall be 
inoperative unless the Dominion of Canada or the Province of British Columbia 
shall, by law, rule, order, or regulation, adopt provisions concerning the water 
herein described similar in intent and purpose to those contained in this sec- 
tion, in which event the provisions contained herein shall continue to be and 
remain in full force and effect. (See sec. 54, ch. 31, this act.) 

[See note to sec. 54 this act.] 

TBAPS, HOW CLOSED — PENALTY. 

Sec. 63. Throughout the weekly closed season prescribed in this act each 
pound net or fish trap shall be closed by an apron placed across the outer 
entrance to the heart of the trap or pound net, which apron shall extend from 
above the surface of the water to the bottom of the water and shall be securely 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 127 

connected to the piles on either side of the heart of such trap or pound net, 
fastened by rings not more than 2 feet apart on taut wires stretched from the 
top to the bottom of the piles. And such apron or the appliances by which it is 
raised and lowered shall be provided with such signals or flags visible at a 
distance of at least one-half mile from the trap, which shall disclose that the 
trap is closed, which signal or flag shall be of the form and character as may 
be prescribed by the commissioner under regulations to be issued by him. 

For the purpose of enforcing this regulation the owner or operator of the 
fish trap or pound net shall constantly maintain, during the weekly closed 
season, a watchman, whose duty, among other things, it shall be to cause such 
pound net or trap to be closed as above provided. Any owner or operator of a 
pound net or fish trap, or any watchman violating any of the provisions of this 
section, either by failing to do any act or thing required or by doing any act 
or thing prohibited by this section, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor 
and shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not less than $250 or more 
than $2,000. (See Rem. & Bal.. sec. 5186.) 

[Intent is not an essential element of unlawful fishing. State v. Cherry 
Point Fish Co., 72 Wash.. 420. Apron provided for in this section shall " sub- 
stantially and practically" prevent fish from entering trap. (Id. )1 

UNLAWFUL PUECHASE OF FISH. 

Sec. 65. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to purchase 
any food fishes of any variety unlawfully taken from waters of this State 
during any of the closed seasons prescribed in this act, and any person who 
purchases any such fish during such periods shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 

TAKING OR SALE OF YOUNG SALMON OR SALMON TROUT PROHIBITED. 

Sec. 66. Any person who by any means, except with hook and line, shall 
catch or take any salmon or salmon trout of any variety less than 15 inches in 
length and who shall not immediately return the same alive to the water, or 
who shall buy or sell or offer for sale or have in his possession any such fish, 
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5197.) 

POSSESSION UNLAWFUL — FISH ILLEGALLY CAUGHT. 

Sec. 67. It shall be unlawful to buy, sell, or have in possession any of the 
food fishes mentioned in this act caught or taken in any of the waters of this 
State wherein it is unlawful to catch or take the same. 

SALMON CANNED WITHIN SIXTY HOURS. 

Sec 68. It shall be unlawful to can or preserve for food any salmon that 
has been removed from the water for a longer period than 60 hours, unless such 
fish have been kept artifically chilled. 

TAKING FISH EXCEPT FOR FOOD OR BAIT PROHIBITED. 

Sec. 69. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for or have in possession any 
food fish of any kind, character, or description, unless the same are to be used 
for food or bait. 

UNLAWFUL TO DESTROY FOOD FISH. 

Sec. 70. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation wantonly to 
waste or destroy salmon or other food fishes taken or caught on any of the 
waters of the State of Washington, and no person engaged in the canning, pre- 
serving, or curing of food fish shall purchase or engage a greater quantity of 
fish than he is able to can, preserve, or cure within 60 hours after the same are 
taken from the water, unless such fish have been artificially chilled. 

TAKING SALMON BELOW DAM OR FISH RACK PROHIBITED. 

Sec. 71. It shall be unlawful to catch, kill, or in any manner destroy any 
salmon on or within 1 mile below any rack, dam, or other obstruction erected 
across any river or stream. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5208.) 



128 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

SPEARING, SHOOTING FISH PROHIBITED. 

Sec. 72. It shall be unlawful to shoot, gaff, snag, or snare any food fish in 
any of the waters of the State. 

TAKING SALMON FOR PROPAGATION — BY WHOM. 

Sec. 73. Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the commissioner or 
the proper officers of the United States or any person with the consent and 
under the direction of the commissioner from taking salmon for propagation in 
any manner at any time. (See Rem. & Bal., sees. 5202, 5221.) 

MAY REMOVE FISH BELOW HATCHERIES. 

Sec. 74. The commissioner may take or remove or cause to be taken or re- 
moved in any manner at any time any fish of any kind, character, or descrip- 
tion within 1 mile below any hatchery or rearing pond. 

DOLLY VARDEN TROUT MAY BE TAKEN. 

Sec. 75. It shall be lawful to take, kill, capture, or destroy at any time, in any 
lawful manner, or to possess or market the salvelinum malma, commonly known 
as the Dolly Varden or bull trout. 

FISH NOT TO BE PLANTED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF COMMISSIONER. 

Sec. 76. It shall be unlawful to liberate, release, implant, or place any fish of 
any kind or description in any stream, river, pond, lake, or other waters of the 
State, either fresh or-salt, without first obtaining the written consent of the 
commissioner. 

CANALS AND DITCHES TO BE SCREENED. 

Sec. 77. Every ditch, channel, canal, or water pipe used for conducting water 
from any lake, river, or stream where any State fish hatchery is located, for 
irrigation, manufacturing, domestic, or other purpose, shall be provided at its 
entrance or intake with a fish guard so fixed as to prevent the passage of fish 
into such ditch, channel, or water pipe, and subject to the approval of the com- 
missioner, which shall be constantly maintained at all times when water is 
taken or admitted into such ditch, channel, canal, or water pipe. Every owner, 
manager, agent, or person in charge of such ditch, channel, canal, or water 
pipe who shall fail to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty 
of a gross misdemeanor. 

Each day the end of the ditch, channel, canal, or water pipe is not equipped 
with this covering, as provided, shall constitute a separate offense. If within 
30 days after notice to equip any such ditch, channel, canal, or water pipe such 
person shall fail to do so, the commissioner is hereby authorized to take posses- 
sion of same in the name of the State of Washington and to close same to the 
entrance of any water until such time as the ditch shall be properly equipped, and 
the expense incident thereto shall constitute a lien upon the ditch, channel, canal, 
or water pipe and upon the real or personal property of person or persons, firm 
or corporation owning same. Notice of such lien shall be filed and recorded in 
the office of the county recorder in the county in which such action is taken. 
(See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5169; compare penalty to Rem. & Bal., sec 5170.) 

DAMS TO BE PROVIDED WITH FISHWAYS. 

Sec. 78. Every dam or other Obstruction across or in any stream shall be pro- 
vided with a durable and efficient fishway, which shall be maintained in a prac- 
tical and effective condition in such place, form and capacity as the commis- 
sioner may approve, for which plans and specifications shall be furnished by 
the commissioner upon application to him, arid which shall be kept open, un- 
obstructed and supplied with a sufficient quantity of water to freely admit the 
passage of fish through the same. Every owner, manager, agent or person in 
charge of such dam or obstruction who shall fail to comply with the provisions 
of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 129 

If any person, firm or corporation shall fail to construct and maintain such 
fish ladder or fishway or to remove such dam or obstruction in a manner satis- 
factory to the commissioner, then within 80 days after written notice thereof 
shall have been served upon the owner, his agent or the person in charge I hereof, 
the commissioner may construct a suitable fish ladder or fishway, or remove 
such dam or obstruction, and the actual cost in case of construction of fishway 
thereof shall constitute a lien upon the dam and upon all the personal property 
of the person or persons, firm or corporation owning the same. 

Notice of such lien shall he tiled and recorded in the office of the county 
auditor of the county in which such dam or obstruction is situated. Such lien 
may he foreclosed in any action brought in the name of the State of Washington. 

If any person or corporation shall fail to make any such fishway or remove 
such dam or obstruction in a manner satisfactory to the commissioner, then 
within 30 days after written notice thereof shall have been served on the 
owner, his agent or the person in charge, such dam or obstruction shall thereby 
become a public nuisance and the commissioner may take possession of same in 
his own name or in the name of the State of Washington and destroy same and 
no liability shall attach for such destruction. No dam or obstruction shall be 
erected in any stream in this State to a height that in the judgment of the 
commissioner shall make a fish ladder or fishway thereover impracticable. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sec. 5199.) 

[If conditions are such in the neighborhood of a dam under construction by 
the United States Government that fish ladder can be successfully constructed 
without embarrassment to the Government or waste of water stored for other 
purposes, the Government is not excused from erecting such fishway in accord- 
ance with this law. (Ops. Atty. Gen., 1909-10, p. 143.)] 

DAMS TO BE PROVIDED WITH HATCHERY. 

Sec. 79. In the event that any person desires to construct a dam in any of 
the streams of this State to a height that will make a fish ladder or fishway 
thereover impracticable, in the opinion of the commissioner, then such person 
may make an application to the commissioner for a permit to construct such 
dam. and the commissioner is hereby authorized to grant such permit in his 
discretion, upon the condition that the person so applying for such permit shall 
convey to the State of Washington a site of the size and dimensions satisfactory 
to the commissioner, at such place as may be selected by the commissioner, and 
erect thereon a hatchery and hatchery residence, according to plans and specifi- 
cations to be furnished by the commissioner, and enter into an agreement with 
the commissioner, secured by a good and sufficient bond, to furnish all water 
and lights without expense, to operate said proposed hatchery ; and no permit 
for the construction of any such dam shall be given by the commissioner until 
the person applying for such permit shall have actually conveyed said land to 
the State and erected said hatchery and hatchery residence in accordance with 
the said plans and specifications. The provisions of this section shall not apply 
to cases where dams have been heretofore constructed in streams to a height 
where the construction of a fish ladder is impracticable, provided an agreement 
has been entered into and executed, with reference to the construction and main- 
tenance of such dam between the commissioner and the owners thereof. 

USE OF EXPLOSIVES PROHIBITED. 

Sec. 80. It shall be unlawful to use or discharge, in any of the waters of this 
State, any explosive substances of any kind, character, or description for the 
purpose of catching, killing, or destroying fish. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5198.) 

Sec. 81. It shall be unlawful to cast or pass or to suffer or permit to be cast 
or passed into any waters of this Sate, either fresh or salt, within such dis- 
tance from any incorporated city or town, any dead fish, heads, or offal or other 
waste from any fish cannery, as the commissioner of public health may deter- 
mine. (See Rem. and Bal., sees. 5411, 8308.) 

[A public nuisance can be abated only by a public officer, except where the 
party who desires to abate it has some special interest in the abatement which 
is different from and greater than the interest of the community. (Griffith v. 
Holman, 23 Wash., 347.)] 



130 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

POLLUTING WATERS PROHIBITED. 

Sec. 82. It shall be unlawful to cast or pass, or to suffer or permit to be cast 
or passed, into any waters of this State, either fresh or salt, any sawdust, planer 
shavings, wood pulp, or other waste, lime, gas, coculus indicus, chemical sub- 
stances, or any refuse or waste material, substance, or matter at any time 
whatsover deleterious to fish or shellfish. (See Rem. and Bal. sees. 519S-5200. ) 

[Old statute prohibited the owner of a sawmill or employee from casting 
sawdust, etc. Held that any mill that makes sawdust is contemplated by the 
statute, as the primary object is the protection of fish. (State v. Kroenert, 
13 Wash., 644; State v. Botchford, 71 Wash., 114.)] 

ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROSECUTE — WHEN. 

Sec. 83. If any person violates any of the provisions of this act, and the 
prosecuting attorney of the county wherein such violation occurs shall, after 
information has been given him by the commissioner, refuses or neglects within 
five days thereafter to file an information against such alleged violator, it shall 
be the duty of the attorney general, and he is hereby given the authority when 
requested by the commissioner, to file an information direct in the superior 
court of said county and in the place and stead of said prosecuting attorney to 
prosecute the case. (See Rem. and Bal., sees. 112-116, 8988-sub. 7; art. 3, sec. 
21, State constitution.) 

RIPARIAN PROPRIETOR MAY ESTABLISH PRIVATE HATCHERY. 

Sec. 86. Any riparian proprietor may establish a private fish hatchery for the 
cultivation of food fishes, and for such purpose and use may, within the limits 
of his own premises inclose the waters of any river or stream or lake in this 
State, subject to the conditions and regulations hereinafter provided, and any 
person lawfully conducting any such private fish hatchery and engaged in the 
artificial propagation, culture, and maintenance of fishes may take them in his 
own inclosed waters wherein the same are so cultivated and maintained at any 
time and for any purpose. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5171.) 

PRIVATE HATCHERY — PASSAGEWAY FOR MIGRATORY FISH PASSAGEWAY OF BOATS, 

ETC. EXCEPTIONS. 

Sec. 87. Any person, firm, or corporation establishing a private fish hatchery 
and inclosing the waters of a river or stream, as provided in the preceding sec- 
tion, shall provide and furnish a suitable passageway along said hatchery for 
migratory fishes naturally frequenting such waters, above and below such hatch- 
ery, and shall so place and construct said inclosure as to allow the passage of 
boats, saw logs, shingle bolts, cordwood, fencing posts or rails, without un- 
reasonable delay, when such inclosure is upon a river or a stream navigable 
and generally used for the navigation of boats or for the floating down of logs, 
fencing posts or rails: Provided, That if the person, firm, or corporation in- 
closing the water of a river or stream, as herein provided, is the sole riparian 
proprietor thereof from such inclosure to and including the source of such 
river or stream, such person, firm, or corporation shall be excepted from the 
operation of this section and shall not be required to furnish any passageway 
for fish or boats, logs, fencing, or other material. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5172.) 
[The riparian proprietor upon the banks of a nonnavigable, fresh water 
stream owns the exclusive right of fishery in the waters flowing opposite his 
land as far as the middle of the stream. (Griffith v. Holman, 23 Wash., 347.) 
One who owns both banks along a nonnavigable stream has title also to the 
land in the bed of the stream, and may lawfully place a fence across a stream 
thus flowing through and over his land. (Griffith v. Holman, supra.) ] 

private hatchery defined. 

Sec. 88. Any person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of taking 
fish spawn and the artificial hatching thereof, or in the raising of fry and fish 
therefrom, in any of the waters or streams of this State, shall be deemed to be 
conducting a private fish hatchery under the terms of this act. (See Rem. & 
Bal., sec. 5173.) 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 131 

SALE OF FISH FROM PRIVATE HATCHERY PROHIBITED UNLESS LOCATION, ETC., RE 
APPROVED AND SAME LICENSED. 

Sec 89. No fish spawn, fry, or fish from private fish hatchery shall be sold 
under the tonus of this act, unless the location and plan of such hatchery, in- 
duding the character and size of a fishway and passage he approved by the 
commissioner and the same duly licensed as a private fish hatchery. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sec. 5174.) 

[See sec. 91, eh. 31, this act for license fee.] 

WHEN FISH MAY BE SOLD. 

Sec 90. The product of such fish hatchery, fish spawn, fry, and fish may he 
sold at any time of the year by such hatchery or their vendees after having 
first complied with the terms of this act and the regulations of the commissioner 
thereto. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5175.) 

LICENSE FEE $2 5. 

' Sec 91. Each private fish hatchery, before it shall be entitled to the benefits 
of this chapter, shall pay an annual license fee of $25 to the commissioner. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sec. 5176.) 

REPORT TO COMMISSIONER. 

Sec 92. It shall be the duty of the superintendent or person in charge of any 
private fish hatchery to make a quarterly report beginning April 1, to the com- 
missioner of the amount of spawn, fry, and number of fish sold, and the name 
and address of the party receiving the same. It shall be the duty of each person, 
firm, or corporation affected by the provisions of the following section to render 
to the commissioner a quarterly report giving a detailed statement showing the 
amount of spawn, fry, and number of fish received from any private hatchery, 
and giving the name and post-office address of the superintendent or manager 
of the same. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5177.) 

LICENSE FEE FOR BUSINESS OF BUYING, PACKING, SELLING, ETC 

Sec 93. Every person, firm, or corporation, buying and selling, packing and 
preserving or otherwise dealing in trout or other food fish obtained from private 
hatcheries in this State, shall pocure a license for such business from the 
commissioner of the State, and shall pay an annual license fee of $2.50. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sec. 5178.) 

UNLAWFUL TO TAKE FISH WITHOUT PERMISSION OF PROPRIETOR OF PRIVATE 

HATCHERY. 

Sec 94. No person shall take fish in any manner from the inclosed portion of 
any river, stream, pond, or other water in which a private fish hatchery is 
located, or in which fish are artificially propagated, cultivated, and maintained 
under the provisions of this chapter, without permission of the owner or 
proprietor of such hatchery. (See Rem. & Bal., sec. 5178.) 

TAGS OR BRANDS ON FISH SOLD. 

Sec 95. The commissioner shall have authority to require tags, branding, or 
other device attached to all fish sold for private hatcheries, and shall designate 
such tags or devices. 

[Compare Rem. & Bal., sec. 5182, " sold from private hatcheries " changed to 
"sold for private hatcheries."] 

DESTRUCTION OF SEALS AND SEA LIONS. 

Sec 96. The commissioner shall have the power and it shall he his duty to 
cause his employees to kill and destroy seals and sea lions in the waters of the 
State of Washington, and he shall have the authority to expend such moneys as 
may from time to time be appropriated by the legislature for such purposes and 
he shall keep an accurate record of the number of seals and sea lions that are 



132 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

so destroyed. Any person killing or causing to be killed within the waters of 
the Columbia River district any common seal or any sea lion, shall be entitled 
to receive a bounty of $1 from the moneys appropriated for such purposes by 
the Legislature of Oregon or the Legislature of Washington, for each seal or 
sea lion so killed. All moneys appropriated for such purpose by the legislature 
of this State shall be paid out under the supervision of the State fish commis- 
sion upon vouchers approved by the commissioner, and the State fish com- 
mission shall adopt rules and regulations providing for the proof of such killing 
and ,the surrender and destruction of the scalp of such seal or sea lion. The 
State fish commissioner may, in his discretion, enter into an agreement with the 
duly authoribed authorities of the State of Oregon for the joint expenditure 
of appropriations made by the Legislatures of the States of Washington and 
Oregon uudei such regulations as may be prescribed in such agreement. (See 
Rem. & Bal., sees. 3597, 3598, 3599, 3C00. ) 

CERTIFICATES FOE SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES. 

Sec. 97. Certificates shall be granted by the commissioner and ex officio 
game warden to any properly accredited person of legal age permitting the 
holder thereof to collect birds, their nests, or eggs, or any of the game, food, or 
shellfish of this State for strictly scientific purposes only. In order to obtain 
such certificate the applicant must present to the commissioner and ex officio 
game warden a written statement from two well-known scientific men. certi- 
fying to the good character and fitness of such applicant and must pay to the 
commissioner and ex officio game warden $1 for the issuance of the certificate 
and must file with him a properly executed bond in the sum of $1,000. On 
proof that the holder of such certificate has killed or taken the nest or eggs of 
any bird, or has taken any food, shell, or game fish for other than scientific 
purposes, this bond shall be forfeited to the State, and the certificate shall 
become void and the holder shall be held subject for each offense to a fine not 
less than $10 and not more than $500. (See Rem. and Bal., sees. 5348, 5349, 
5350). 

[See vol. 3, Rem. and Bal. Code, sec. 5341-1; also Rem. and Bal., sec. 5341.] 

UNITED STATES OFFICERS MAY TAKE FISH FOR PROPAGATION. 

Sec. 98. Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to prevent the taking of 
salmon or other food fishes by the commissioner or other proper officers of the 
United States for propagation purposes. (See Rem. and Bal., sec. 5221.) 

CLAMS AND MUSSELS — CLOSED SEASON, PACIFIC OCEAN BEACH. 

Sec. 99. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons whomsoever to take 
or dig clams from the sands of the beach of the Pacific Ocean in this State, or 
from the beaches of Grays Harbor or Willapa Harbor, or to have in their pos- 
session, if the same have been taken for the purpose of canning or for sale, 
between the 1st day of June and the 31st day of August of each year : Provided, 
That nothing in this section shall prevent the taking of these clams for con- 
sumption of the taker or his family, or guests at all times without a license. 
(See Rem. and Bal., sec. 5234.) 

CLOSED SEASON, PUGET SOUND. 

Sec. 100. It shall be unlawful for any person to take or dig clams or mussels 
from any of the tideland abutting on Puget Sound or from the waters of Puget 
Sound below the line of low tide, or have them in their possession, if the same 
have been taken for the purpose of canning or selling, between the 1st day of 
April and the 1st clay of September of each year: Provided, That nothing in 
this section shall prevent the taking of these clams for consumption of the taker 
or his family, or guests at all times without a license. 

TAKING OR FISHING FOR CRABS. 

Sec. 101. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take or 
have in their possession for the purpose of selling or canning any female or any 
male crab measuring less than 6* inches across its back or to take or fish from 
any of the waters of the State or have in its possession after the same has been 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 133 

taken, for the purpose of selling or canning any crab, during the months of 
July, August, and September of each year: Provided, That any such person who 
lias a crab in his possession Caught during the month of June may retain the 
same in his possession lawfully until the 5th day of July thereafter: Provided, 
That nothing in this section shall prevent the taking of crabs for the consump- 
tion Of the taker or his family or guests, at all times without a license, and it 
shall he unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take or catch any crabs 
with beam trawl or drag seine. 

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to take, capture, or 
remove from any of the waters of the State of Washington any crab by the use 
of a spear or other sharp instrument whereby the shell of any said crab is 
broken or penetrated. (See Item, and Bal., sees. 5230, 5237, 5239.) 

Appendix B. 

Extract from the laws of Oregon for the protection of game and 
fish (chap. 287, Laws of 1915) which appear to be of interest in the 
contemplated revision of the Alaska fisheries law. 

Protection of Fish and Game. 

lumber waste, dyes, chemicals, decaying substances, etc. 

Sec 42. (a) No v person, or the proprietor, operator, agent, superintendent, or 
employee of any railroad company, sawmill, or other lumber or manufacturing 
concern, or any pulp mill, wood saw, tannery, woolen mill, dye works, chemical 
works, slaughterhouse, or any manufacturing concern, or any steamboat, or 
any other water craft shall cast or suffer or permit any sawdust, planer shav- 
ings, wood pulp, or other lumber waste or any element or chemical extracted 
therefrom, or any slashing of trees or brush, or any oil, coal tar, petroleum, or 
extract therefrom, or any dye or chemical to be thrown, cast, or discharged in 
any manner, or to deposit the same where high water will take or carry same, 
into the waters of the State of Oregon. 

( b ) Any person who shall put any dead animal carcass, or part thereof, 
manure, putrid, decaying, or deleterious substance in any of the waters of the 
State of Oregon, or who in any manner not herein named, pollutes or impairs 
the quality of any spring, brook, creek, branch, or pond of the State of Oregon 
inhabited by fish shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished as hereinafter 
provided. (Sec. 42, ch. 232, Laws 1913.) 

[For penalty see section 62.] 

FISH WAYS. 

Sec. *43. (a) Where, in the judgment of the State Board of Fish and Game 
Commissioners, any fishway is inadequate, as constructed under the provisions 
of section 5288 of Lord's Oregon Laws, or otherwise, said board of commis- 
sioners shall have power to condemn any such fislnvay and order a new fishery, 
or fishways, installed in accordance with such plans and specifications as may 
be determined by the State Board of Fish and Game Commissioners. 

(b) The State Board of Fish and Game Commissioners shall have power to 
determine or ascertain by inspection of any dam or artificial obstruction 
whether it would be advisable to construct or order the construction by the 
owners thereof of fishways over such dam or obstructions, and it shall be the 
duty of such State Board of Fish and Game Commissioners to construct or 
order the construction of such number of fishways in any stream inhabited by 
salmon or trout as shall be deemed adequate to provide a good and sufficient 
passageway for such fish. ( Sec. 43, ch. 232, Laws 1913. ) 

DISPOSITION OF FINES. 

Sec. 61. {«) All fines imposed as provided in this act and collected in money 
shall he paid to the treasurer of the county in which such action or proceeding 
shall have been commenced, and the district or prosecuting attorney or treasurer 
of said county, upon payment of any judgment, shall satisfy same Of record as 

46232— pt 2—16 7 



134 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

i 

attorney for the State, and all such moneys so collected shall be deposited in 
the general fund of the county in which such fine is imposed. 

(b) When any judgment or conviction shall be rendered under this act, and 
defendant shall be adjudged to pay a fine, the judgment shall also direct the 
defendant to be imprisoned in the county jail until such fine be paid for the 
period of one day for each $2 of such fine remaining unpaid. (Sec. 61, ch. 232, 
Laws 1913, as amended by ch. 77, Laws 1915.) 

PENALTY. 

Sec. 62. (a) Any person hunting, pursuing, taking, killing, injuring, destroy- 
ing, trapping, or having in possession any mountain sheep, mountain goat, ante- 
lope, elk, moose, or caribou shall be guilty' of a misdemeanor and shall be pun- 
ished by a fine of not less than $200 or more than $1,000 and costs of such suit 
or action, or shall be imprisoned in the county jail in the county wherein such 
unlawful act was committed for not less than 60 days or more than 6 months, 
or both such fine and imprisonment. 

(&) Unless otherwise specifically provided, any person violating any of the 
provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by 
a fine of not less than $25 or more than $500 and costs of such suit or action, 
or by imprisonment in the county jail in the county wherein such unlawful act 
was committed for not less than 30 clays or more than 6 months, or both such 
fine and imprisonment. (Sec. 62, ch. 232, Laws 1913.) 

POWDER, GAS, LIME, COCCULUS INDICUS, POISON, ETC. 

Sec. 63. (a) It shall be unlawful to explode or cause to be exploded any giant 
powder, dynamite, or other explosives in any lake, river, stream, pond, bay, or 
other waters within the boundaries of this State without first obtaining an 
order permitting it to be done from the board of county commissioners of the 
county in which it is desired to use the explosives, as hereinafter provided. 

(ft) It shall be unlawful to place, or cast, or pass, or allow to be cast, or flow, 
or passed any gas, lime, cocculus indicus or extract therefrom, or any other 
substance poisonous to fish, in any lake, river, stream, pond, bay, or other waters 
within the boundaries of this State without first obtaining an order permitting 
it to be done from the board of county commissioners of the county in which it 
is desired to use the poison, as hereinafter provided. 

(c) It shall be unlawful to take, or kill, or injure any fish in any lake, river, 
stream, pond, bay, or other waters within the boundaries of this State by means 
of giant .powder, dynamite, or other explosives, or by means of lime, cocculus 
indicus or extract therefrom, or other poison, without first obtaining an order 
of the county commissioners of the county permitting it to be done as herein- 
after provided. 

(d) Having in possession any trout, salmon, or other game fish under circum- 
stances- which make it reasonable to believe that they were taken and killed by 
means of lime or cocculus indicus or extract therefrom, or other poison, or by 
giant powder or dynamite or other explosive, shall justify the arrest of the per- 
son or persons so having the fish in their possession ; and it shall then be incum- 
bent upon such persons to prove and show that the fish were taken and killed by 
lawful means. 

(e) Every person who aids or abets in exploding any giant powder, dyna- 
mite, or other explosive, or in putting any lime, cocculus indicus, or extract 
therefrom, or other poison, in any lake, river, stream, pond, bay, or other waters 
within the boundaries of this State contrary to the provisions of this section, 
or who aids or abets in taking or killing any fish in this State contrary to the 
provisions of this section, or who aids or abets in taking or securing any fish 
in this State which he knows or has reason to believe have been killed or in- 
jured contrary to the provisions of this section, shall be deemed guilty of violat- 
ing this section, and upon conviction shall be punished as hereinafter provided. 

(/) Whenever, in the course of removing any obstructions in any waters 
within this State, or in constructing any foundations for dams, bridges, or 
other structures, any person shall desire to explode any giant powder, dynamite, 
or other explosives in any waters within this State, before doing so he shall 
file a verified petition with the county commissioners of the county setting forth 
his plans and objects, and when he desires to use the explosive, and what neces- 
sity there is for using explosives. If the county commissioners approve of the 
necessity for using the explosives, they may make an order granting the peti- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 135 

tioner leave to use explosives, designating the place or places and period within 
which the explosives may he used, and prescribing such precautions as will save 
the fish from injury. If any such person disregards such order, he shall he 
deemed to have violated this section, and upon conviction shall he punished 
accordingly. 

(!/) Whenever the owner of any lake or pond in this State desires to get rid 
of and kill the tish known as German carp in said lake or pond, he shall file 
a verified petition with the county commissioners of the county stating in what 
section, township, and range the lake or pond is situated, and with what waters 
it connects, and his reasons for wishing to kill the fish. He shall truly and 
particularly state what other kinds of fish are in the lake or pond. If the 
county commissioners are satisfied that there are no fish other than German 
carp, catfish, suckers, and such like worthless fish in the lake or pond, and 
that the same has no outlet wherehy the poison can escape into other waters, 
the commissioners shall make an order permitting the person to put lime or 
other suhstance in the lake or pond for said purpose. If any person use lime 
or other poison in any water within the boundaries of this State, without first 
obtaining such order, or contrary to such order, he shall be deemed to have 
violated this section, and upon conviction shall be punished as hereinafter 
provided. 

(It) Every person who desires to obtain permission to use explosives or lime 
or poison, under provisions of this section, shall serve upon the fish commis- 
sioners, or State game or forestry warden of this State, a certified copy of his 
petition, not less than 10 days before the hearing of the petition. Such service 
may be made personally upon the fish commissioner or State game and forestry 
warden, or by registered mail, and the proof of service shall be filed with the 
commissioner. The fish commissioner or State game and forestry warden or 
any person interested may oppose the granting of the order, and the same may 
be reviewed. 

(i) Any persons or persons violating any of the provisions of this section 
shall be tried in the circuit court of the county wherein such offense shall 
have been committed, and upon conviction shall be both fined and imprisoned. 
If it is his first conviction for violating the provisions of said section, he shall 
be fined not less than $200, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than 
30 days nor more than 1 year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. If 
he is convicted of violating said section a second time, or oftener, he shall 
then be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $3,000, and shall be im- 
prisoned in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than three years 
for each repeated offense. (Sec. 2337, L. O. L. ; sec. 50, ch. 232, Laws 1909.) 

SCREENING IRRIGATION DITCHES, ETC. 

Sec. 64. Any person owning in whole, or in part, or leasing, operating, or 
having in charge any irrigating ditch, or canal, mill race, or other artificial 
watercourse, taking or receiving its waters from any river, creek, or lake 
in which fish have been placed or may exist, shall, upon order of the State 
board of fish and game commissioners, place or cause to he placed, and 
shall maintain, to the satisfaction of the State board of fish and game com- 
missioners, over the inlet of such ditch, canal, mill race, or watercourse 
a reasonable grating screen or other device, either stationary or operated 
mechanically, of such construction, fineness, strength and quality, as shall 
reasonably prevent any fish from entering such ditch, canal, mill race, or 
watercourse, to the satisfaction of such board. But before any of said offi- 
cers shall adopt any permanent plan for a screen or other device to be placed 
in irrigating ditches, it shall be their duty to conduct a competitive exam- 
ination, and at such examination all persons desiring so to do may sub- 
mit to said officers for their approval or rejection, working models of their 
respective screens or other devices for the protection of fish. Inadequate 
screening devices may be ordered removed and new screens ordered installed. 
when, upon investigation after full hearing upon which all interested parties" 
have had the right to be heard, it is determined that any screen, grating, or 
other device, either by construction, operation, or otherwise, is found to be 
inadequate by the State hoard of fish and game commissioners. Any per- 
son found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this act shall he pun- 
ished by fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100, or by imprisonment in 
the county jail for not to exceed 30 days or by both such fine and imprison- 
ment. (Sec. 64, ch. 257, Laws 1913.) 



136 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Protection of Food Fish. 

salmon fishing unlawful except as herein provided. 

Sec. 70. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon in any rivers or their 
tributaries in the State of Oregon, or any waters over which the State of Oregon 
has concurrent jurisdiction, except as hereinafter provided. (Sec. 5236 of Lord's 
Oregon Laws.) 

ACTS PROHIBITED — PENALTY GEAR FORFEITED — FISH CONFISCATED HATCHERY 

FUND EVIDENCE. 

Sec. 88. Any person or persons, firm, or corporation found fishing or taking, 
catching, or transporting salmon fish or sturgeon in or upon any of the waters of 
this State, or in or upon any of the waters over which this State has concurrent 
jurisdiction, or found making use of any boat or boats, vessel or vessels, or any 
fish trap, weir, pound net, gill net, set net, fish wheel, seine, or any other device 
intended for or which is capable of being used to catch or transport salmon fish 
or sturgeon in or upon any of the waters of this State, or in or upon any of the 
waters over which this State has concurrent jurisdiction ; or who shall have in 
or upon any of the waters over which this State has concurrent jurisdiction, or 
who shall leave or cause to be left in a condition to take or catch salmon fish 
or sturgeon, in or upon any of the waters of this State, or in or upon any of 
waters over which this State has concurrent jurisdiction, any fish trap, weir, 
pound net, gill net, set net, fish wheel, seine, or any other device intended for or 
which is capable of being used to catch salmon fish or sturgeon, during any 
existing closed season or any closed season that may hereafter be enacted ; or 
who may purchase salmon fish or sturgeon, or have in its or their possession 
salmon fish or sturgeon unlawfully caught during any existing closed season, or 
any closed season that may hereafter be enacted, shall be deemed guilty of a 
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not less than 
$50, nor more than $500, and costs for each and every offense, and, in addition 
thereto, shall forfeit the boat or boats, vessel or vessels, fish trap or fish traps, 
weir or weirs, pound net or pound nets, gill net or gill nets, set net or set nets, 
fish wheel or fish wheels, seine or seines, or any other device or devices so 
unlawfully used, and the salmon fish or sturgeon found in his or their or its 
possession. All salmon fish or sturgeon so unlawfully caught or taken and all 
property forfeited under the provisions of this section shall be immediately taken 
possession of by the fish warden, deputy warden, or water bailiff, and shall be 
confiscated by said warden, deputy warden, or water bailiff and immediately 
thereafter turned over to the master fish warden, who may dispose thereof at 
his discretion. The money arising from the sale of salmon fish or sturgeon and 
all property forfeited under the provisions of this section shall be deposited with 
the State treasurer to be placed in the " hatchery fund " for the district in 
which such seizure and confiscation was made. In all prosecutions under this 
section the possession by any person of salmon fish or sturgeon during any 
closed season or any closed season that may hereafter be enacted for the pro- 
tection of salmon fish or sturgeon shall be construed as prima facie evidence that 
the same were unlawfully caught during said closed season, and it shall be no 
defense that the fish were caught or taken outside or within the State. (Sec. 
5268, L. O. L.) 

POSSESSION OF FISH CAUGHT DURING CLOSED SEASON UNLAWFUL — PRESUMPTION 

FROM POSSESSION. 

Sec. S9. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to receive, or have 
in his or their possession, or sell or offer for sale transportation, or transport, 
during the closed season named in this act. any chinook, steelhead, blueback, 
silverside, or other species of salmon, caught or taken during any of the closed 
seasons named in this act ; and in all prosecutions under this section the pos- 
session by any person during the closed season named in this act of any chinook, 
steelhead, blueback, silverside, or other species of salmon, shall be construed 
as prima facie evidence that the same were unlawfully caught during the 
closed season. (Sec. 5287, L. O. L.) 

YOUNG SALMON IN TIDE WATERS PROTECTED. 

Sec 90. It shall be unlawful to take or fish for the young of salmon, under 
twelve inches in length, in any waters of the State of Oregon, or in the waters 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 137 

of any of the rivers or bays over which the State of Oregon has concurrent 

jurisdiction, at any time or in any manner whatever; or to take, fish for, stone, 
Club, shoot, with any description of firearm, spear, foul hook, or molest, wound, 
kill, or injure, in any manner at any time whatever, or to expose for sale or 
have in possession, except for the purpose of propagation, any gravid or spawn- 
ing salmon. (Sec. 5266, L. < >. L.) 

For penalty see section 133. 

Note. — This section has been amended by paragraph (/) of section 9.1 as to 
the si/.e of young salmon that may he taken. 

Sec. 91. It shall he unlawful at any time whatever to take, fish for, or pursue 
salmon in any of the rivers and their tributaries in the State of Oregon, or in 
any waters over which the State of Oregon has concurrent jurisdiction, with 
spear, gaff, or foul hook, or other device, whether used with rod and line or 
otherwise, for the purpose of foul hooking salmon: Provided, That nothing 
in this act shall he so construed to affect operations and rights of the North 
American Indians who have not severed their tribal relations: Provided 
further, That this act shall not apply to nor prevent the taking of salmon during 
the season when it is lawful to take salmon, by gig hook or rod and line in 
any of the waters of the State of < >regon or in any waters over which the State 
of Oregon has concurrent jurisdiction, east of a point 200 yards above the 
Celilo Falls on the Columbia River and the tributaries thereto emptying into 
said Columbia River above said point, but in no case shall any one person take 
to exceed two salmon in one day and for his sole domestic use only. (Sec. 
5267, L. O. L., amended by eh. 224, Laws of 1915. ) 

For penalty see section 133. 

TKAPS, NETS, FISH WHEELS, ETC. UNLAWFUL TO FISH WITHOUT LICENSE. 

Sec. 92. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to operate or main- 
tain, or leave in a condition to take fish, in any of the waters of this State at 
any time hereafter, any fish traps, weir, pound net, set net, gill net, fish wheel, 
seine, or any device or apparatus or gear used in catching salmon fish or stur- 
geon, without first having obtained from the fish warden a license therefor as 
hereinafter provided. (Sec. 5294. L. O. L.) 

For penalty see section 133. 

DEALING IN SALMON, ETC., WITHOUT LICENSE PROHIBITED. 

Sec. 93. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, firm or corpora- 
tion, to engage in the business of buying, selling, canning, packing, preserving, 
peddling, or otherwise dealing in salmon fish or sturgeon, or other anadromous 
fish within the State of Oregon, without first having obtained a license therefor 
from the fish warden as hereinafter provided. In all prosecutions under this 
section it shall be no defense that the person or persons, or firm or corporation 
caught his or their or its own salmon fish or sturgeon or not. All licenses 
issued under the provisions of this section shall expire on the 31st day of 
March following the issuance thereof. (Sec. 5295, L. O. L. ) 

For penalty see section 107. 

TAKING OK DEALING IN FISH WITHOUT LICENSE UNLAWFUL. 

Sec. 94. (a) It shall be unlawful to take, catch, or fish for, buy, sell, can, 
pack, or otherwise deal in or handle any salmon fish or sturgeon or other food 
or shellfish in this State or in any waters of this State or in any waters over 
which this State has concurrent jurisdiction, without first obtaining a license 
therefor, as provided by law, and any person, upon conviction thereof, for each 
and every offense shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by 
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both such 
fine and imprisonment. (Sec. 1, ch. 157, Laws of 1915.) 

(It) Whenever it shall state in the laws of the State that it shall be unlawful 
to purchase food fish, illegally caught, said prohibition shall be construed to 
mean that it shall be unlawful to knowingly purchase. (Sec. 2, ch. 157. Laws 
of 1915.) 

LICENSE SCHEDULES AND OTHER REGULATIONS. 

Sec. 95. (a) The waters over which the States of Oregon and Washington 
shall be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction shall comprise the waters of 



138 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

the Columbia River and its tributaries, within the confines of the States of 
Oregon and Washington, where said waters are State boundaries. (Sec. 1, 
ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 

(6) The failure to renew the license, or make application therefor, for any 
fish trap, pound net, fish wheel, or location for other fixed appliance, in any 
of the waters of this State on the 1st day of April of any year, shall consti- 
tute abandonment of the location. (Sec. 2, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 

(c) Should the holder of any license neglect to construct the appliance called 
for by said license during two consecutive seasons covered by his license, said 
location shall be deemed abandoned. (Sec. 3, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 

(d) It shall be unlawful in the use and operation of a set net to create any 
artificial eddy or to erect or use any artificial structure or artificial obstruc- 
tion for such purpose. ( Sec. 4, ch. 188, Laws of 1915. ) 

(e) No license for taking or catching salmon or other food or shellfish, re- 
quired by laws of this State, shall be issued to any person who is not a citizen 
of the United States, unless such person has declared his intention to become 
a citizen, and is and has been an actual resident of the State for one year imme- 
diately preceding the application of such license, nor shall any license be issued 
to a corporation unless it is authorized to do business in this State. Nothing 
herein contained shall be construed to prevent the issuance of licenses to women, 
minors of the age of 18 years or over, or to Indians, providing such applicants 
possess the qualifications of citizenship and residence hereinbefore required, 
nor to prevent the renewal of licenses for fixed, appliances by persons now 
holding the same: Provided, That all gill net licenses issued by the States 
of Oregon and Washington shall be valid as to the waters of the Columbia 
River in the States of Oregon and Washington as though issued by the depart- 
ment of fisheries of either State, and the department of fisheries of each State, 
or the officials who have charge of issuing licenses, shall furnish to each other 
the names of the licensees and the numbers of the licenses without cost or 
expense to either State. (Sec. 5, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 

(/) When required by the master fish warden, any person desiring to fish 
for salmon, sturgeon, or any food or shell fish in any of the waters of this State, 
or waters over which the State has concurrent jurisdiction, may go before a 
county clerk of any county of this State or the master fish warden and furnish 
satisfactory proof of his citizenship or of the fact that he has declared his 
intention to become such, and file his own affidavit and the affidavit of two or 
more persons to the effect that he now is and for a year prior thereto has 
been an actual bona fide resident of this State ; thereupon such clerk shall issue 
to him a certificate briefly reciting those facts, and thereafter in any prose- 
cution against such person for a violation of the provisions of this act such 
certificate or a duly authenticated copy of the records in the office of the clerk 
relative thereto shall be prima facie evidence of his citizenship and residence 
as in this act required ; but in all prosecutions under this act the burden of 
proof shall be upon the defendant to establish the fact of his citizenship and 
residence ; but nothing herein contained shall delay the issuance to any appli- 
cant of a license for a fish trap, fish wheel, set net, or pound net, which is 
required by the provisions of this act to be issued on the 1st day of April of 
each year. ( Sec. 6, ch. 188, laws of 1915. ) 

(g) That it shall be unlawful for any person to fish or take for sale or profit 
any salmon, sturgeon, or other food fish in any of the rivers or waters over 
which the States of Oregon and Washington have concurrent rights and con- 
current jurisdiction unless such person be 'a citizen of the United States, or 
has declared his intentions in good faith to become such, and has been for 
one year immediately prior to the time he makes application an actual resident 
of the State in which he seeks to obtain his license. (Sec. 7, ch. 188, laws 
of 1915.) 

(h) 1. Licenses herein required shall be issued to any qualified person or 
corporation by the master fish warden upon application therefor and the pay- 
ment of the license fees herein required. A separate license shall be required for 
each trap, pound net, set net, fish wheel, or other fixed appliance, and for each 
seine and gill net and dip net, and for each person trolling for salmon in the 
waters of the Columbia River, and for each person other than employees engaged 
in the canning, packing, or curing of food or shell fish, and for each person other 
than employees purchasing or selling food or shell fish, either as principal, agent, 
or broker. 

2. For each first-class pound net or fish trap license for talking of salmon, 
$25. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 139 

For each second-class pound net or fish trap license for taking salmon, $15. 

For each stationary fish wheel license for taking of salmon, $35. 

For each scow fish win-el license for the taking of salmon, $25. 

For each purse-seine license for the taking of salmon, $25: Provided. That no 
purse seine shall be a greater length than 1,750 linear feet. 

For each gill-net license for the taking of salmon. $7.50. 

For each set of net license for the taking of salmon. $3.75. • 

For each drag-seine license for the taking of salmon, 3 cents per linear foot, 
minimum license, -SI."). 

For each bag-net license for the taking of smelt, herring, or salmon, .$1. 

For each license to take oralis. $1. 

For each license to take clams and mussels, $1. 

For each license to take crawfish, $1. 

Retail fish dealers and peddlers, $5 minimum and $1 per gross ton in the 
round or whole, for all salmon, shad, or sturgeon handled in excess of 5 tons. 

For each wholesale dealer in fish and for each person engaged in freezing, 
salting, smoking, kippering, preserving in ice or otherwise, $10 ; and $1 per ton 
on the gross weight of all salmon, shad, and sturgeon, said weight being figured 
in the whole or round. 

For each fish broker not operating as a packer or canner, a license of $50. 

For each person using scows, boats, or other water craft in the buying, han- 
dling, or transporting food fish, $1. 

For each person, firm, or corporation using scows, boats, or other water craft 
in the buying of fish on the Columbia River, for each scow, boat, or other craft, 
a license of $50. This requirement shall not apply to scows, boats, or other 
craft used in buying fish for and transporting fish to canneries and packing 
plants that pay an annual license feet to the States of Oregon or Washington, 
of not less than $100. 

Every person, firm, or corporation engaged in canning salmon, shell, or other 
food fish shall pay the following fees or license yearly: 

For each case of Chinook salmon packed in district No. 1, prior to the 26th day 
of August of each year, 4 cents per case ; for each case of Chinook salmon packed 
in district No. . 1, after the 26th day of August of each year, 2 cents per case ; 
for each case of steelhead salmon, blueback, or sockeye salmon, packed in dis- 
trict No. 1. 2 cents per case ; for each case of any other variety of salmon, packed 
in district No. 1. 1 cent per case ; for each case of clams, clam nectar, crab, shad, 
shrimp, and other food and shell fish, 1 cent per case; for each case of salmon 
packed on the Rogue River, prior to the 26th day of August of each year, 4 cents 
per case ; for each case of salmon packed on the Rogue River, after the 26th 
day of August each year, 2A cents per case ; for each case of salmon packed in 
any other part of district No. 2, 2* cents per case. 

3. All applications for licenses under the provisions of this act shall be made 
on blanks furnished by the master fish warden and accompanied by a sworn 
affidavit, specifying in detail the location of any fixed fishing appliance or seine, 
and such information as will enable the master fish warden to determine the 
correctness of the application. 

In case of applications for retail dealers and peddlers, wholesale dealers, per- 
sons engaged in freezing, salting, smoking, kippering, preserving, or otherwise 
dealing in food fish, persons engaged in canning salmon, shell or other food fish, 
said applicant shall set forth the amount of the various kinds of fish handled 
or canned by said applicant during the preceding license year, as shown by the 
books of the applicant, which shall be the basis for the charge for the current 
license year. 

In case of application by retail dealers or peddlers, or wholesale dealers, or 
persons engaged in freezing, salting, smoking, kippering, preserving, or other- 
wise dealing in food fish, or persons engaged in canning salmon, shell or other 
food fish, who were not so engaged for the previous license year, then, in that 
event the master fish warden shall charge said applicants for retail fish dealers' 
or piddlers' licenses the minimum fee of $5, and each applicant for wholesale 
dealer or for freezing, salting, smoking, kippering, preserving, or otherwise 
dealing in food fish, the statutory fee of $10, and shall further exact from said 
applicant a good and sufficient bond guaranteeing the payment of further 
license fees based on the actual amount of food fish handled during the current 
licensed year; and for each person engaged in the canning of salmon, shell or 
other food fish, the master fish warden shall exact a good and sufficient bond, 
guaranteeing the payment of license fees on the basis of salmon, shell or other 
food fish canned during the current license year. 



140 ALASKA PISHEEIES. 

4. Licenses shall be valid only for the district in which they are issued. 

5. Any license may be assigned or transferred to any person entitled to hold 
a license under the provisions of this act, and notice shall be given of such 
assignment or transfer within 30 days thereafter to the master fish warden, 
who shall indorse the date of such notice on the license. If such notice be not 
given the license shall be void. 

. 6. For the purpose of this act a case of fish is defined to consist of 48 one- 
pound cans or bottles or equivalent in weight. 

7. For the purpose of this act all traps taking fish of the value of $1,000 or 
more shall be considered of the first class and all other of the second class. 
(Sec. 8, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 

(*) Additional fees shall be collected by the master fish warden as follows: 
Every person, firm, or corporation operating any of the appliances herein- 
before mentioned, except gill nets, set nets, dip nets, and trolling lines, in the 
water of the State of Oregon, or over which the State of Oregon has concurrent 
jurisdiction, for each 1,000 or fraction thereof of Chinook salmon caught in the 
Columbia River prior to the 26th day of August of each year, at the rate of 
$5 per thousand ; for each 1,000 or fraction thereof of Chinook salmon caught 
in said river after the 26th day of August, and for each tyee, king, black, or 
spring salmon and black-mouth salmon, at the rate of $3 per thousand ; for each 
1,000 or fraction thereof of steel-head salmon, at the rate of $3 per thousand ; 
for each 1,000 or fraction thereor of sockeye, blueback, or quinault salmon, at 
the rate of $1.50 per thousand ; for each 1.000 or fraction thereof of silverside 
or cohoe salmon, chum, or dog salmon, at the rate of $1 per thousand ; for each 
sturgeon, 7i cents ; for each gross of crabs, 10 cents ; for each ton of clams, 
gross weight in shells, 75 cents. 

All money collected under the provisions of this act shall be deposited by 
the master fish warden with the State treasure, for the credit of the hatchery 
fund of the district from which the collection has been made. 

(j) The owner of any fishing appliance, except gill nets and set nets, which 
is licensed as provided by law shall report to the master fish warden, under 
oath, on blanks to be furnished by the master fish warden, upon request, semi- 
annually, on Many 10 and November 10 of each year, for the six months pre- 
ceding the 1st day of the month on which the report is made, the number of 
salmon, species stated separately, also the number of crabs, sturgeon, pounds 
of smelt, herring, shrimp, clams, and shad caught during the preceding six 
months, and shall at the same time remit the license charges provided by law. 
Any person engaged in the taking of food fish from the waters of this State, 
or from the waters over which this State has concurrent jurisdiction, or en- 
gaged in buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in salmon, crabs, sturgeon, smelt, 
herring, shrimp, clams, and shad taken within or without the State, and any 
person engaged in preserving or curing food or shellfish, and any person en- 
gaged in the handling of fish for which a charge is exacted by law, who shall 
fail to report to the master fish warden at his office on the dates provided by 
law and at the same time to make payment of the amount of money due the 
State, shall be guilty of a violation of this act. (Sec. 9, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 
(k) Throughout the closed seasons each pound net or fish trap, operated in 
any of the waters of this State, or in any waters over which this State has 
concurrent jurisdiction, shall be closed by an apron placed across the outer 
entrance to the heart of the trap or pound net, which apron shall extend from 
above the surface of the water to the bottom of stream, and shall be securely 
connected between the piles on each side of the heart of said trap or pound 
net, and shall be fastened by rings not more than 2 feet apart, on taut wires 
stretched from top to bottom of the piles, and said apron shall be provided 
with such signals as shall be satisfactory to the master fish warden, and as 
will show that the same is closed. The failure or neglect on the part of any 
person, firm, or corporation, owning or operating a fish trap or pound net, to 
close said fish trap or pound net, as above provided, shall constitute a misde- 
meanor, punishable, upon conviction, by a fine of not less than $250. (Sec. 
10, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 

(I) It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to take by any means 
whatever, except with hook and line, commonly called angling, any salmon 
or steelhead less than 14 inches in length, and if said person or persons shall 
accidently or otherwise take any salmon or steelhead covered by this section, 
and not return the same alive to the water, or who shall buy or sell or offer 
for sale, or have in his possession any such fish, the said person shall be 
guilty of a violation of this act. (Sec. 12, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 141 

(in) n shall be unlawful to can or preserve Cor food any salmon thai have 
been removed from the water for a longer period than 60 hours, unless such 
fish have been artificially chilled. (See. i:;, ch. 188, Laws of i!ti.">. > 

(n) it shall be unlawful to take or fish for, or have in possession, any food 
fish of any kind, character, or description unless the same are to he used for 
food or bait. (See. 14, ch. 1SS, Laws of 1915.) 

(o) It shall he unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation wantonly to 
waste or destroy salmon or other food fish taken or caught in any of the waters 
of the State of Oregon, or over which the State of Oregon has concurrent 
jurisdiction, and no person engaged in the canning, preserving or curing of 
food fish shall purchase or engage a greater quantity of fish than he is able to 
can, preserve, cure, or artificially chill within 60 hours after the same are taken 
from the water. ( Sec. 15, ch. 18S, Laws of 1915. 1 

(/;) Any person or persons shall have the right to take clams, crabs, and 
mussels and crawfish in any of the waters of this State for the use of such 
person, individually, or for the use of his family or guests at all times, without 
license. ( Sec. 16, ch. 188, Laws of 1915. ) 

(q) Nothing in the game code of this State shall be construed as affecting 
the operation of the appliances or the taking of any fish lawfully under the 
commercial fish laws. (Sec. 17, ch. 1SS, Laws of 1915.) 

(r) It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase any food fish of any 
variety unlawfully taken from any of the waters of this State, or from any 
waters over which the State of Oregon has concurrent jurisdiction during any 
closed season prescribed by law ; and any person who purchases such fish dur- 
ing any such period shall be guilty of a violation of the act. (Sec. 18, ch. 188, 
Laws of 1915.) 

(s) It shall be lawful to take, kill, capture, or destroy at any time, in any 
lawful manner, in the waters of the Columbia River, over which the State of 
Oregon has concurrent jurisdiction, or to possess or market the salvelinus 
malma, commonly known as Dolly Varden or bull trout, upon same being tagged 
or punched under the rules provided under the game code. (Sec. 19, ch. 188, 
Laws of 1915.) 

(t) Unless otherwise specifically provided, justice courts shall have concur- 
rent jurisdiction in the first instance with the circuit court of all offenses under 
this act. (See. 23, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 

(u) Any acts or parts of acts herein repealed, which are reenacted in form 
or in substance in this act, shall not be construed as new acts, but as eontinu- 
tions and amendments of such acts or parts of act. All rights of action under 
existing laws, which this act in any way supersedes or repeals, if the same at 
the time this act takes effect shall not have been commenced, shall proceed 
under the provisions of this act. (Sec. 24, ch. 1SS, Laws of 1915.) 

(r) Any person violating any provisions of this act, either by neglecting to 
observe its requirements or by directly violating the same, whether or not 
such violation is specifically declared to be a misdemeanor, shall be guilty of a 
misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, for each and every offense shall be 
subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail 
for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment : Pro- 
vided, however, That the provisions of this section as to penalties shall not 
apply to violations of those sections wherein a specific penalty is fixed. (Sec. 
25, ch. 188, Laws of 1915.) 

FISH WHEEL MUST NOT BE CONCEALED — HOW PLACED. 

Sec. 96. It shall be unlawful for any person to place or cause to be placed 
in any of the rivers or waters of this State, or in any river or water over or 
upon which this State has concurrent jurisdiction, any fish wheel in a condi- 
tion to take salmon, or in a position less than 3 feet above the surface of any 
such river or water, or covered or concealed in such manner that the position 
of the same can not be clearly discerned from the nearest river bank during 
any part of the closed season specified in this act. (Sec. 5289, L. O. L.) 

PILING FOR POUND NET TO BE REMOVED. 

Sec 97. (a) It shall be the duty of the owner of each and every pound net 
constructed in the waters of the Columbia River, over which the State of 
Oregon has concurrent jurisdiction, to remove from the bed of the Columbia 
River all piling driven in the same, by pulling out said piling, within 5 days 



142 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

from the close of each fall fishing season, and to keep said piling Out of the 
river until within 10 days of the commencement of the fishing season in the 
following spring. (Sec. 5290, L. O. L.) 



(5) Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this act, upon con- 
viction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50, nor more than 
$500, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than 25 days nor more 
than 250 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Sec. 5291, L. O. L.) 

TRAPS, ETC., KEGULATED. 

Sec. 98. (a) It shall be unlawful for the master fish warden or the State 
board of fish and game commissioners to grant a license to any person, firm, 
partnership, or corporation to build or set up fish traps or any other fixed fish- 
ing appliance, or drive piles therefor, in any locality in or on the Columbia 
River and its tributaries in this State when, in their judgment, the same in- 
terferes with a prior right of fishing. (Laws of 1913, ch. 128, sec. 1.) 

(5) Whenever any fish trap or any other fixed fishing appliance is built or 
set up in violation of this act, the master fish warden of the State of Oregon is 
hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to confiscate and sell said fish trap, 
and to remove all the piling driven for such purposes immediately, and he is 
authorized and directed to pay into the hatchery fund of that district of the 
State of Oregon the proceeds of said sale. (Laws of 1913, ch. 128, sec. 2.) 

(c) No lead of any pound net, trap, fish wheel, or any fixed appliance, or 
any set net used or operated in the waters of the Columbia River or its tribu- 
taries in this State for catching salmon shall exceed 800 feet in length, and 
there shall be an end passageway of at least 30 feet and a lateral passageway 
of at least 900 feet between all such pound nets, traps, weirs, fish wheels, or 
other fixed appliances, or set nets hereafter constructed and placed within the 
waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries in this State, except the 
Willamette River. For the purpose of determining end passageways, base 
lines shall be drawn at right angles with the general course of locations first 
originally established and intersecting the ends thereof, and the end passage- 
ways shall be measured at right angles from such base lines : Provided, That 
this amendment shall not affect any locations lawfully existing under previous 
statutes when this act takes effect ; and any or all such fishing appliances may 
be maintained upon such existing locations as though this act had not been 
passed, or they may be changed to conform to the provisions hereof as to end 
passages at the option of the location owners and holders thereof. (Laws of 
1913, ch. 128, sec. 3.) 

(d) Any violations of this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than 
$100 or more than $500 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 
30 days or more than 90 days. (Laws of 1913, ch. 128, sec. 4.) 

REGULATION lights and monuments to be maintained at fixed GEAR — OTHER 

GEARS PENALTY. 

Sec. 99. Any person, after first having obtained license from the fish warden 
to operate a pound net, trap, or weir, shall indicate the location for such pound 
net, trap, or weir by erecting a permanent and conspicuous monument on the 
bank of the river or channel, and upon said monument shall cause to be placed 
and maintained the license numbered preceded by an " O," designated by the 
fish warden at the time of issuing said license ; said number to consist of black 
figures not less than 6 inches in length painted on white ground ; after any such 
pound net, trap, or weir has been located and constructed, the owner thereof 
shall file a map with the fish warden, giving the exact description and loca- 
tion thereof. During the fishing season, between sunset and sunrise, a bright 
and conspicuous white light shall be maintained on each pound net, trap, or 
weir. Any person having obtained a license from the fish warden to operate 
a fish wheel, shall cause to be placed and maintained in a conspicuous place 
on said wheel or on a permanent monument erected for that purpose the number, 
preceded by an " O," designated by the fish warden at the time of issuing said 
license ; said number to consist of black figures not less than 6 inches in length 
painted on white ground. Any person having obtained a license from the fish 
warden to operate a set net shall cause to be placed and maintained on a sub- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 143. 

stantial post or monument erected for that purpose on the hank of the river or 
channel. <>r upon a buoy securely anchored on the location claimed, the number, 
preceded by an "<>." designated by the fish warden at the time of issuing said 
license, said number to consist of black figures not less than c> inches in length 
painted <>n white ground; in addition thereto said person shall cause to be 
branded on the corks of each end of said set net, and upon the cork nearest the 
center thereof the number designated in said license, said number to consist of 
figures not less than 1 inch in length. Any person having obtained a license 
from the fish warden to operate a seine shall cause to he placed and maintained 
in a conspicuous place on the wharf, scow, or float maintained at the seining 
ground claimed, the numher, preceded by an " O," designated by the fish war- 
den at the time of issuing said license, said number to consist of black figures 
not less than 6 inches in length painted on white ground; in addition thereto, 
said person shall cause to he branded on the corks of each end of said seine, and 
Upon the cork nearest the center thereof, the numher designated in said license, 
said number to consist of figures not less than 1 inch in length. Any person 
having obtained a license from the fish warden to operate a gill net in any of 
the water of this State or the Columbia River, or from the fish commissioner of 
the State of Washington, said State having concurrent jurisdiction on the 
Columbia River with this State as to gill nets and as to gill net fishermen, shall 
cause to be placed upon the corks of each end of such net, and upon the cork 
nearest the center thereof, the numher designated in said license, said number 
to consist of figures not less than one-half inch in length ; and shall also cause 
to be placed upon each side of the bow of the boat used to operate such net, the 
number designated in said license, preceded by an " O," if issued by the fish 
warden of the State of Oregon, or the number designate;!- in said license, pre* 
ceded by a " W," if issued by the fish warden of the iy-rs^e of Washington, said 
number to consist of black figures not less than 6 inched in Jiengifch painted on light 
ground, or white figures not less than 6 inches in length pa\s£ed on dark ground. 
A separate license shall he required for each pound nit, t/ap, weir, fish wheel, set 
net, or for any other fixed appliance, and for each seine, gill' net, or other drift 
net. Any owner or operator of any fishing appliance or boat herein specified, 
who fails, neglects, or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of this sec- 
tion within five days from the date of license issued for such appliance, shall 
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be pun« 
ished by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $50, and the costs of the 
action ; a failure from clay to clay to comply with any of the provisions of this 
section shall constitute a separate offense and subject the owner or operator 
of said appliance or boat to additional punishment by such fine. (Sec. 5304, 
L. O. L.) 

FISH APPLIANCES LIABLE TO EXECUTION FOR FINES. 

Sec. 100. Any and all gear and appliances used in violation of the provisions 
of this act, including boats, traps, nets, weirs, fish wheels, or other appliances, 
shall he subject to execution for the payment of fines an dcosts herein provided 
for. (Sec. 5320, L. O. L.) 

FISHING WITHOUT LICENSE OR OTHERWISE UNLAWFULLY, SUBJECTS APPLIANCES TO 
SEIZURE PROCEDURE THEREON . 

Sec. 101. All fish traps, pound nets, gill nets, set nets, fish wheels, fishing 
hoars, and vessels used in fishing, and apparatus and any and all appliances or 
devices which shall he used or employed by any person or persons or corpora* 
tibns, including all such fishing appliances fished or operated by any person 
who has not obtained a license, or a license to operate such appliance, in fish- 
ing for or catching salmon fish at or during any time or in any of the waters 
in this act prohibited, and which by this act is made unlawful, whether being 
operated by any person or left in a condition to take fish, or abandoned but 
left in condition to take fish, shall be seized and be confiscated, condemned, 
and sold, and the proceeds of such sale shall he paid to the State treasurer, 
and by him deposited in the hatchery fund for the district in which such ap- 
pliance is seized : and it is hereby made the duty of the fish warden to seize 
and take into his possession all such fishing appliances hereinbefore men- 
tioned, which shall he operated wrongfully or unlawfully by any person, or 
left by any person in a condition to take fish, or abandoned by any person 
but left in a condition to take fish, shall be seized and be confiscated, con. 
demned, and sold, and the proceeds of such sale shall be paid to the State 



144 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

treasurer and by him deposited in the hatchery fund for the district in which 
Such appliance is seized ; and it is hereby made the duty of the fish warden 
to seize and take into his possession all such fishing appliances hereinbefore 
mentioned, which shall be operated wrongfully or unlawfully by any person, or 
left by any person in a condition to take fish, or abandoned by any person but 
left in a condition to take fish, at or during any time or in any of the waters 
in this act prohibited, and which is made unlawful by this act ; and immedi- 
ately upon such seizure the prosecuting attorney for the district in which such 
appliance is seized shall institute an action in the circuit court for that county 
to have such appliance confiscated, condemned, and sold ; such petition shall 
contain a true description of the appliance sought to be confiscated, condemned, 
and sold, as nearly as practicable, together with all marks, brands, or any 
special features thereof, calculated to designate same from other appliances 
Of like nature, and if a fixed appliance, the number ; and shall allege facts 
Showing that the same was used in violation of the provisions of this act. The 
petition shall be duly verified by the oath of the fish warden, or one of his 
deputies, and in such action the State of Oregon shall be plaintiff, and the 
owner of such appliance, if known, shall be the defendant ; and if unknown, 
then such unknown owner shall be designated as " John Doe," whose true name 
is unknown ; and such like proceedings shall be had and such action shall be 
prosecuted to final determination as in actions at law, excepting that the sum- 
toons shall be issued by the clerk of the court, and shall require the defendant, 
If known, to appear and answer within 15 days after the service of such sum- 
toons upon him, and if he fails so to appear and answer, judgment of confisca- 
tion shall be entered as prayed for in the petition. Such summons shall con- 
tain a brief description of the appliance sought to be confiscated; and if such 
defendant shall be unknown or can not be found, the summons shall require 
Such unknown owners to appear within four weeks after the first publication 
thereof, as hereinafter provided ; such summons shall be served upon the de- 
fendant, if known personally, in any county in the State ; and, if unknown and 
can not be found, the summons shall be published for four weeks in some news- 
paper published in the county where the action is instituted. All persons own- 
ing or claiming any interest in such fishing appliance will be permitted to 
answer, setting forth their various interests, but it will be no defense to a 
judgment of confiscation that the owner or morgagee or lienor of such ap- 
pliance did no consent to have the same unlawfully operated. Upon the trial 
of said cause the matter to be determined shall be whether or not the appli- 
ance seized was unlawfully employed, or suffered or permitted to be unlaw- 
fully employed, in violation of the provisions of this act, or used or operated 
Without a license or by one not licensed ; and if judgment shall be entered 
that the same was used or employed, or suffered or permitted to be used or 
employed, in violation of this act, a judgment shall be rendered confiscating 
each appliance and ordering the same to be sold at public auction to the high- 
est bidder for cash, and execution shall issue upon such judgment as in an 
ordinary action at law, and like proceedings shall be had under such execu- 
tion as now provided by law ; and the money arising from the sale of such 
appliance shall be immediately deposited with the State treasurer, and by him 
deposited in the hatchery fund for the district in which such appliance was 
seized. No fee shall be charged or collected from the State board of fish and 
game commissioners at the institution or during the prosecution of such 
action, and no judgment will be awarded against them or the State of Oregon 
for costs and disbursements. Should the State board of fish and game com- 
missioners deem themselves aggrieved by the ruling or decision of the court 
at any time after the institution of said action, the right of appeal is hereby 
given the State of Oregon, to be prosecuted in the same manner as appeals in 
ordinary civil actions, excepting that no fee shall be charged the State and 

THE TEEM " PERSON " OE "_PEESONS," WHAT TO INCLUDE. 

Sec. 102. The term " person " or " persons " used in this act shall be deemed 
to include partnerships and corporations. ( Sec. 5322, L. O. L. ) 

EISH WAEDEN TO KEEP EECOEDS AUTHOEITY APPEALS. 

Sec. 103. The fish warden shall keep and preserve a record of all applications 
for license filed. The fish warden is not bound by statements therein made as to 
the amount of fish canned, packed, or handled, and for the purpose of ascer- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 145 

taining the true class in which any canner, packer, or dealer in salmon or other 
anadromous fish or sturgeon, as herein provided, should be listed, such fish 
warden or any of his deputies has full authority and is hereby authorized to 
inspect the cannery, cold-storage plant, packing establishment, and places of 
business of such parties, and the books of such showing the amount of th^ir 
pack or the amount -handled (but the information derived therefrom shall not 
be made public), and if in the opinion of the fish warden the facts set forth in 
the affidavit of the applicant for a license are untrue, and the canner, packer, 
or dealer, as herein provided, is not properly classed, he shall immediately class 
the same and list the same properly, and cancel the license already issued, 
and demand from such canner, packer, or dealer, as herein specified, a new 
license fee necessary to bring it within the class it should have been listed in 
the first instance; but any person, firm, or corporation feeling aggrieved by the 
decision of the fish warden may appeal from the decision of the fish warden to 
the circuit court of the State of Oregon for the county in which is or its busi- 
ness is situated. Such appeal is taken by a written notice of such appeal on 
the fish warden, or his deputy residing in the county, and filing same with proof 
of service indorsed thereon within 10 days from receiving notice of such relist' 
ing by such fish warden, together with a bond with one or more sufficient 
sureties, to be approved by the clerk of the circuit court, conditioned to pay 
whatever judgment may be rendered against him on the appeal, in the office of 
the clerk of the State of Oregon for the county in which said business is 
located ; and the case shall be tried in the said circuit court as a suit in equity, 
and judgment entered by the court accordingly, and the decision shall be final, 
and the judgment of the court shall be enforced as other judgments are, and 
shall have like force and effect. No costs shall be taxed against the fish warden 
in any event. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the State 
board of fish and game commissioners, the fish warden, or any of the deputies, 
from giving in evidence at the trial of such appeal any fact or information de? 
rived by them from inspection of the books or papers of any canner, packer, or 
dealer in fish, or from offering in evidence in any court the affidavit of any 
person required by this act. (Sec. 5304, L. O. L. ) 

CONTENTS OF LICENSE — EFFECT. 

Sec 104. (a) Each and every license issued under the provisions of this act 
shall be numbered and dated by the fish warden, and the number of cannery, 
dealer, pound net, gill net fish wheel, seine, trap, or other appliance, or business 
licensed, and the number of the district where the appliance or business is 
located, and shall also contain the name of the person or persons to whom such 
license is granted. All licenses for whatever appliance or business granted 
under the provisions of this act shall be valid only in the district for which the 
same is issued, and shall expire and become null and void on the 31st day of 
March following the issuance of such license. (Sec. 5303, L. O. L.) 

(6) All money received on account of appropriations, fines collected for viola- 
tion of the commercial fishing laws, commercial fishing licenses, licenses for 
fishing appliances, licenses for persons engaged in the business of canning fresh 
salmon, and licenses of persons other than canners engaged in the business 
of buying, selling, packing, or otherwise dealing in salmon fish, sturgeon, or 
other food or shellfish and which have heretofore been paid into hatchery fund 
district No. 1 and hatchery fund district No. 2, or any other fund, shall be paid 
to the State treasurer and by him placed to the credit of the general fund: 
Provided, That all money so collected and paid to the State treasurer shall be 
considered an appropriation and placed to the credit of the hatchery fund No. 1 
and hatchery fund No. 2, or other funds, and shall be used for the protection 
and propagation of fish in their respective districts as heretofore under the 
direction of the State board of fish and game commissioners. (Par. (I), sec. 11. 
ch. 2S7, Laws of 1915.) 

DIVISION OF STATE INTO DISTRICTS HATCHERY FUND. 

Sec 105. For the purpose of this act, the State of Oregon is hereby divided 
into fishing districts as follows: District No. 1 shall include that portion of the 
Columbia River and its tributaries over which the State of Oregon has juris- 
diction: district No. 2 shall include all the coast streams and their tributaries 
in the State of Oregon south of the Columbia River. The fish warden shall 
collect and receive all license fees, fines or parts of fines, or proceeds arising from 



146 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

the sale of confiscated fish or fishing appliances, under the provisions of this 
act, and shall pay the same to the State treasury within 30 clays after collection 
or receipt thereof, to be placed in the hatchery fund, said fund to be used for 
hatchery purposes under the direction of the State board of fish and game com- 
missioners. All sums of money collected in any district shall be by the State 
treasurer credited to the hatchery fund of such district,- and in paying over 
moneys collected, the fish warden shall designate the district in which all moneys 
were collected ; he shall take a receipt, in duplicate, from the State treasurer, 
one he shall file in his own office and the other in the office of the secretary of 
state. The money collected in any district shall not be expended, except in the 
district in which it was collected. All moneys now in the " hatching fund," after 
all outstanding accounts against said fund have been paid, shall be appor- 
tioned and transferred as follows : Two-third to the hatchery fund of district No. 
1 ; one-third to the hatchery fund of district No. 2 ; and the secretary of state 
shall issue his warrants on the State treasurer, making such transfer from the 
V hatchery fund." Upon the payment of any judgment that may have been ob- 
tained against any person or persons for the violation of any of the provisions 
of this act, the same shall be satisfied by the district attorney, upon the presen- 
tation of the receipt of the master fish warden. ( Sec. 5283, L. O. L. ) 

PEESONS TO INCLUDE CORPORATIONS. 

Sec. 106. The term " person " or " persons " used in this act shall be deemed 
to include partnerships and corporations. ( Sec. 5310, L. O. L. ) 



Sec. 107. Any person or persons, firm, or corporation violating any of the 
provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon con- 
viction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than 
$1,000 and the costs of the action or by imprisonment in the county jail not 
less than 25 days nor more than 1 year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 
All moneys received from fines and penalties under this act shall be disposed 
of in the same manner as is provided under the general laws pertaining to the 
fishing industry- (Sec. 5311, L. O. L.) 

JUSTICES CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. 

Sec 108. Justices of the peace shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the 
circuit courts of this State of all offenses mentioned in this act. (Sec. 5312, 
L. O. L.) 

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF HATCHERIES IN ADJOINING STATES. 

Sec. 119. The State board of fish commissioners is hereby authorized to 
construct, maintain, or operate salmon hatcheries in an adjoining State, and 
to expend a portion of the money in the " hatchery fund " for that purpose : 
Provided, That no hatchery shall be constructed or operated on any stream in 
an adjoining State that is not a tributary of the Columbia River or whose 
waters do not flow into said Columbia River. ( Sec. 5285, L. O. L. ) 

RACKS OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS FOR HATCHERY PURPOSES. 

Sec 120. The fish commissioner and the Fish Commission of the United 
States Government, or any individual operating hatcheries in this State, are 
hereby authorized to erect racks, traps, or other obstructions across any of the 
Streams in this State for the purpose of obtaining salmon for propagating pur- 
poses, and it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to injure or destroy 
any such racks, traps, or obstructions by any means whatever, or take, kill, 
destroy, or molest any salmon within 2 miles below any such rack, trap, or 
obstruction across any stream in this State. (Sec. 5286, L. O. L.) 

FISH MAY BE TAKEN ANY TIME BY PROPER OFFICERS FOR PROPAGATION. 

Sec 121. Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to prevent the taking 
of salmon at any time of the year by the board of fish commissioners or ac- 
credited officers of the United States Government for propagation. (Sec. 5319, 
L. O. L.) 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 147 

PLACING FISH IN WATER WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF BOARD UNLAWFUL. 

Sec. 122. It shall bo unlawful for any person, without written authority 
from the board of fish commissioners, to place in any water of this State any 
species or variety of fish whatever. (Sec. 5317, L. (). L. ) 

BOARD MAY CLOSE STREAMS. 

Sec 123. The board of fish commissioners is authorized by this act to propa- 
gate and stock the various waters and streams of this State with salmon, 
sturgeon, trout, or other food fishes not inimical to or destructive of salmon ; 
and for the purpose of protecting the same they are hereby authorized to close 
any stream or any designated portion thereof in this State frequented by 
salmon, or any stream which they have stocked, and prevent any person taking 
or fishing for or catching any salmon or food fishes therein (except that por- 
tion of the Columbia River west of the mouth of the Deschutes River and that 
portion of the Willamette River north of the Willamette Falls at Oregon City). 
Should the board of fish commissioners desire to close any stream or desig- 
nated portion thereof frequented by salmon, or any stream or designated por- 
tion thereof which they have stocked with food fish, they shall cause notice 
thereof to be filed in the office of the county clerk in each county in which 
such stream or designated portion thereof lies, and shall publish such notice 
in some public newspaper published at the county seat in such county or 
counties for four successive weeks. Such notice shall designate as nearly as 
practicable the streams or designated portion thereof to be closed, and shall 
state that on and after a date therein stated it will be unlawful to fish for or 
take or catch any salmon or other food fishes therein (which date shall not 
be less than 30 days from the date of the first publication), and shall cause 
like notices to be published for such time in three conspicuous places on the 
banks of such streams or designated portion thereof. Upon the completion of 
the publication of such notice, the same, with proof of the publication and 
posting thereof, shall be filed with the original notice in the office of the county 
clerk, and it shall be unlawful at any time after the expiration of the date 
specified in said notice for any person to fish for, catch, or take any salmon or 
any food fishes stocked therein until notice shall be filed and likewise published 
by the board of fish commissioners of the opening of such stream or designated 
portion thereof to the public for fishing. (Sec. 5316, L. O. L. ; Laws 1913, ch. 
139, sec. 1.) 

PLACING DELETERIOUS MATTER OR EXPLOSIVES IN WATERS OF STATE UNLAWFUL. 

Sec 124. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to throw, or cast, or 
pass, or cause, or permit to be thrown, or cast, or passed, in any waters of the 
State in which salmon fish of any kind or other food fishes are wont to be, any 
lime, drug, powder, indicated bait, gas, or coulus indicus, or any other sub- 
stance deleterious to fish, or to explode or cause to be exploded in any waters 
of this State any powder, hercules powder, giant powder, dynamite, nitro- 
glycerine, or any other explosive substance whatever for the purpose of catch- 
ing, killing, or destroying any salmon or any food fish. (Sec. 5269, L. O. L.) 

OBSTRUCTION IN FISH STREAM PROHIBITED TAKING FISH WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS 

OF FISHWAY UNLAWFUL. 

Sec 127. It shall be unlawful for any person to construct any milldam or 
artificial obstruction across any stream in this State frequented by salmon or 
trout, or to maintain any such milldam or obstruction heretofore erected with- 
out providing a passageway for such fish over such obstructions, such passage- 
way for fish to be constructed as near the main channel as may be prac- 
ticable. It shall be the duty of the fish warden to examine, from time 
to time, all milldams and artificial obstructions to all rivers and streams 
in the State frequented by salmon or < ther migratory fish, and if in his opinion 
there is not a free passage for fish over any milldam or artificial obstruction, 
to notify the owner or occupant thereof to provide the same within a reasonable 
time with a durable and efficient fishway, of such form and capacity and in 
such location as shall be determined by the fish warden. If such fishway is 
not completed to the satisfaction of said fish warden within the time specified, 
the owners or occupants of such milldam or artificial obstruction shall be 



148 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be punished as in 
this act "hereinafter provided. It shall be incumbent upon the owners and 
operators of all milldams or artificial obstructions, where the fish warden re- 
quires such fishway to be provided, to keep the same in repair and open and 
free from obstruction to the passage of fish at all times, and any owner or 
operator of any dam or artificial obstruction who neglects or refuses to keep 
such fishway in repair and open and free from obstruction to the passage of 
fish shall be' guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished as 
in this act hereinafter provided ; and the continuance from day to day of the 
neglect or refusal after notification in writing by the fish warden, shall con- 
stitute a separate offense; and it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully 
or knowingly destroy, injure, or abstract from such fishway, or to take or catch 
any salmon or other' migratory fish within 600 feet below any fishway : Provided, 
however, That fishing with hook and line only shall be permitted 200 feet 
below any fishway. 

Fishing with hook and line, commonly called angling, in the Willamette 
Itiver shall be lawful at any time: Provided, however, That it shall be unlawful 
for any person to catch more than three salmon in any one day with hook 
and line during that portion of the year closed to net fishermen. 

The master fish warden and the State game and forestry warden, together 
with their respective deputies, shall have concurrent jurisdiction to. enforce the 
provisions of this act. (Laws 1911, ch. 192; L. O. L., sec. 5288.' 

For penalty see section 133. 

HINDERING PASSAGE OF FISH PROHIBITED. 

(b) It shall be unlawful for anyone to hinder, annoy, or disturb the fish 
entering, passing through,* or leaving said fishway, or to obstruct the passage of 
fish through the same at any time or in any manner, or for anyone to place 
anything in said fishway or use any device for catching fish, or any wheel, 
or net, or hooks, or lines in said fishway, or anywhere within 50 feet thereof, 
or to catch fish at any time anywhere within 50 feet of said fishway, or anyone 
to do any injury to said fishway. (Sec. 5336, L. O. L.) 

Note. — It is unlawful to angle within 200 feet below a fishway under sec- 
tion 127. 

PENALTY REWARD FOR INFORMER. 

Sec. 133. Any person or persons violating any of the provisions of this act 
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be 
punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000 and the costs, of the 
action, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than 25 days nor more 
than 1 year, or by both such fine and imprisonment : Provided, That in case of 
fine only that he' be imprisoned in the county jail until such fine and costs of 
action be paid, he shall be credited on such fine and costs the sum of $2 for 
each day of imprisonment. In all actions for violations of the provisions of 
this act, one-third the moneys collected as fines shall be paid to the district 
attorney, or his deputies, who conducts the action ; one-third shall be paid to 
the informer or prosecuting witness: Provided, That such informer or prose- 
cuting witness is not a regularly appointed and salaried fish warden, or salaried 
deputy warden ; the remaining one-third, or two-thirds, or all, as the case may 
be, shall be paid to the master fish warden and by him deposited with the State 
treasurer, to be placed in the " hatchery fund " for the district in which said 
fine was imposed. (Sec. 5323, L. O. L.) 



Appendix C. 

In this appendix there will be incorporated the following : 

1. Extracts from the provincial fisheries act of 1911 for British 
Columbia. 

2. Excerpts from the Dominion fisheries act of 1906. 

3. Comments from the April, 1914, number of the Canadian 
Fisherman, a trade journal, regarding certain parts of a revised 
Dominion fisheries act. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 149 

4. Extract from address of Prof. E. E. Prince regarding whale 
fishery. 

(Appendix C, part 1.) 

[Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1011, Vol. II, p. 1055.] 

Chapter 89. — An Act Respecting Provincial Fisheries. 

Mis Majesty, by and with the edvice and consent of the Legislative Assembly 
of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows : 

SHOUT TITLE. 

1. This act may be cited as the " provincial fisheries act," 1901, chapter 25, 
section 1. 

INTERPRETATION. 

2. Where the following words and expressions occur in this act, and in any 
regulations hereby authorized, they shall be construed in the manner herein- 
after mentioned, unless a contrary intention appears : 

" Crown lands " means and shall include such ungranted Crown or public 
lands, or Crown domain, as are within and belong to the Province, and 
whether or not any waters flow over or cover the same. 

" Water " or " waters," or " provincial water " or " provincial waters," means 
and shall include such of the waters of the sea, or of any bay or inlet of the 
sea, or any lake, river, stream, or watercourse wholly or partially within the 
Province over or in respect of which the legislature has authority to legislate 
for the purposes of this act, and whether flowing over or covering Crown lands 
or not, but shall not include any waters in which fish are propagated and pre- 
served by the owner or tenant of the lands covered by such waters. 

" Commissioner " means the member of the executive council designated from 
time to time by order in council as commissioner of fisheries. 

" Case " means four dozen cans of fish each weighing 1 pound, or the equiva- 
lent in weight of such four dozen cans. 

" Fish " means and shall include every kind, species, or variety of fish in 
respect to the catching or killing of which, within the Province, the legislature 
has authority to legislate. 

" Fishery lease," or " lease," means and shall include a lease conferring for 
a term therein mentioned upon the lessee therein named the right to take and 
keep, for the purposes of fishing, under and subject to the provisions of this 
act and of all regulations made thereunder, the exclusive or other possession 
of any Crown lands therein described, with the exclusive or other right to fish 
in any waters floating over or covering the same, at such time and in such man- 
ner, and with such restrictions and subject to such regulations, as may be 
permitted, regulated, or prescribed by any lawful authority in that behalf. 

" Fishing license," or " license." or " permit " means and shall include a 
license granting for the time therein mentioned, to the licensee therein named, 
upon payment of the license fee therein stipulated, a right to fish in any waters 
therein described or other lands in respect of which the legislature has authority 
to legislate for the purposes of this act, at such time or times, in such manner, 
and with such restrictions and subject to such regulations as may be permitted, 
regulated, or prescribed by any lawful authority in that behalf ; but no fishing 
license or permit shall be deemed to be, or be construed to operate as, or in the 
nature of, a lease or demise. 

" Close season " means the time in any year during which fishing for, catch- 
ing or taking in any provincial water, or killing, carrying away, or buying or 
selling, or having in possession the kinds or species of fish hereinafter named, 
or any of them, is prohibited or regulated by the laws or fishing regulations of 
Canada. 

" Fishery " means and shall include the particular locality, place, or station 
in or on which a seine, pound, or other net is used, placed, or located, and the 
particular stretch of waters in or from which fish may be taken by the said 
seine or net, and also the net or nets, and other fishing material or appliances 
used in connection therewith. 

" Overseer " shall include district overseer, local overseer, and temporary 
guardian. 

46232— pt 2—16 S 



150 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

"Angling"' in this act means the taking of fish with hook and line held in 
the hand, or with hook and line and rod, the latter held in the hand, and shall 
not include set lines. ( 1901, ch. 25, sec. 3 ; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 2. ) 

APPLICATION OF ACT. 

3. This act, and the respective provisions thereof, and the regulations hereby 
authorized, shall apply to all fishing and rights of fishing, and all matters 
relating thereto, in respect of which the legislature has authority to legislate 
for the purposes of this act ; but shall not authorize, nor shall any lease, license, 
or permit issued hereunder, or in pursuance of regulations made hereunder, 
authorize or be deemed to authorize any interference with the navigation of any 
navigable waters. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 2.) 

OFFICERS, THEIR DITTIES AND POWERS. 

4. The lieutenant governor in council may appoint a deputy commissioner, 
fishery overseers, and such other officers and clerks as may be necessary and 
expedient for the purpose of carrying out this act and the regulations made 
under it. Such deputy commissioner, overseer, officers, and clerks shall be 
paid out of the moneys received under the provisions of this act, or as may be 
appropriated by the legislature, such remuneration as shall be determined by 
the lieutenant governor in council. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 3.) 

5. Every provincial constable shall be ex officio a fishery overseer, and every 
fishery overseer shall have jurisdiction in and over every part of the Province 
for the purpose of the enforcement of the fishery laws thereof. (1902, ch. 26. 
sec. 4.) 

6. In the discharge of his duties, the commissioner, deputy commissioner, 
every fishery overseer, and every person by the commissioner, deputy commis- 
sioner, or a fishery overseer accompanied or authorized for that purpose, may 
enter upon and pass through or over private property without being liable for 
trespass. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 5.) 

7. Such annual or other reports of the deputy commissioner and fishery over- 
seers shall from time to time be furnished as the lieutenant governor in council 
may require. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 7.) 

8. Fishery overseers shall determine and direct where nets may be set, and 
the distance to be maintained between each and every location of nets, and shall 
forthwith remove any fishery which the owner neglects or refuses to remove 
in compliance with any such determination and direction ; and such owner so 
neglecting or refusing, after 48 hours notice, shall be moreover liable for a viola- 
tion of this act, and for the cost and damages of removing said fishery ; but 
nothing in this section shall empower the fishery overseers to authorize the 
setting of nets in waters other than those described in the license. (1901, ch. 
25, sec. 32.) 

LEASES AND LICENSES. 

9. Whosoever shall fish without a permit, lease, or license in provincial waters 
wherein fishing is prohibited, except by permit, lease, or license, shall for each 
offense be liable to the penalty provided by section 42 of this act, and costs, 
and in default of payment of such fine and costs shall be imprisoned for a period 
not exceeding three months. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 10.) 

10. No one shall, without lawful excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on him), 
buy, sell, or possess any fish, or portion of any fish, caught or killed in pro- 
vincial waters at a time or in a manner prohibited by this act, or by regulations 
made under this act. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 13; 1902. ch. 26, sec. 11.) 

11. Special licenses and leases for any term of years may be granted by the 
lieutenant governor in council to any person who wishes to plant or form oyster 
beds in any provincial waters, except public harbors ; and the holder of any 
such lease or license shall have the exclusive right to the oysters produced or 
found on the beds within the limits of such lease or license. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 
31.) 

12. Fishery leases or licenses may be issued subject to such terms, conditions, 
or limitations as may be contained therein or made part thereof, or shall be 
prescribed, as limited by section 30 hereof, by order in council or by this act, 
and the same shall be binding to all intents and purposes upon the lessees or 
licensees or their assigns ; and any such lessee or licensee or his assigns thereof 
who contravenes any of the terms, conditions, or restrictions thereof shall for- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. . 151 

feit his rights and privileges under such lease or license, and such lease or 
license may in such case lie revoked by the commissioner, and the lessee or 
licensee shall in addition be deemed to have committed a contravention of this 
act. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 11; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 9.) 

13. The commissioner may issue, or authorize to lie issued, to British sub- 
jects only, fishery leases or fishery licenses for fisheries and fishing to he car- 
ried on in provincial waters, subject always to such regulations, conditions, and 
restrictions as may from time to time be made, ordered, established, or fixed in 
that behalf by the lieutenant governor in council, as limited by section 30 
hereof, and published in the (iazette, or as may be contained in the lease or 
license; but leases or licenses for any term exceeding five years shall be issued 
only under authority of the lieutenant governor in council. (1902, ch. 26, 
sec' 12.) 

14. The rental or liceuse shall be fixed by the lieutenant governor in council, 
and when not paid in advance shall be paid at the time or times specified there- 
for in the lease or license; and the lessee or licensee who fails to pay the rental 
or fees when and as by his lease or license provided shall forfeit all rights 
thereunder, and thereupon the lease or license may be declared void by the com- 
missioner, who may relet the said rights ; and notwithstanding the forfeiture of 
the said lease or license and the said reletting, the said lessee or licensee shall 
be liable, at the suit of His Majesty, for the said rental or fees and the expenses 
incurred by such forfeiture and reletting. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 13, subsec. (1).) 

15. No lessee or licensee shall have the right to sublet, transfer, or assign any 
right, interest, or privilege granted or conferred upon him under the provisions 
of this act without first having obtained the written consent of the commis- 
sioner. ( 1901, ch. 25, sec. 16 ; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 14. ) 

16. If, in consequence of any incorrectness of survey, or other error or cause 
whatsover, a fishery lease comprises lands included in a fishery lease of a prior 
date, the fishery lease last granted shall be void in so far as it interferes or 
purports to interfere with that previously issued, and the holder or proprietor 
of the lease so rendered void shall have no claim for indemnity or compensa- 
tion on account thereof. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 17.) 

IT. Every fishery lease shall be deemed to have been made and granted sub- 
ject to the right of passage to and from any water in favor of the occupants 
(if any) under title from the Crown, of the lands in rear of those included 
in the fishery lease, whether so expressed in the lease or not. (1901, ch. 25, 
sec. IS.) 

lessee's eights. 

18. A fishery lease shall entitle the lessee to institute in his own name any 
action or proceeding against any person unlawfully trespassing upon, damaging, 
or invading the rights, property, premises, or privileges granted or demised 
by the lease, and also to sue for and recover any damages sustained by him 
as such lessee. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 23.) 

19. Every person not being lawfully authorized so to do who enters upon 
or passes over the land described in and the subject of a fishery lease without 
permission of the lessee or his representative shall be deemed a trespasser, and 
on conviction thereof shall incur and pay a fine of not exceeding $10 and not 
less than $1, with costs of prosecution, for each offense ; and in default of 
immediate payment of such fine and costs shall be imprisoned in the common 
gaol of the county or district within which the offense was committed for a 
period not exceeding one month. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 24, subsec. (1).) 

20. If any person, without permission of the lessee or his representative, 
fishes, or employs or induces another person to engage or assist in fishing, 
within the limits included in a fishery lease, or removes or carries away, or 
employs or induces or assists another person to remove or carry away, any 
fish caught or taken within such limits, he shall upon conviction thereof incur 
and pay a fine of not exceeding $20 and not less than $5, with costs ; and in 
default of immediate payment of such fine and costs shall be imprisoned in 
the common gaol of the county or district within which the offense was com- 
mitted or in which the conviction was made for a period not exceeding one 
month; and such person shall not acquire any right to the fish so caught or 
taken, but the same shall be forfeited and become the absolute property of 
the lessee ; and the lessee, or any person by him authorized, and any fishery 
overseer, may on view forthwith seize and remove any net, article, apparatus. 
or appliance so used in fishing or to assist in fishing contrary to the provisions 
of this section, to be afterwards dealt with according to law: Provided always, 



152 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

That the occupation of any fishing grounds or waters leased for the express 
purpose of net fishing shall not interfere with nor prevent angling for other 
purposes than those of sale or traffic. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 25.) 

FISHERY GUARDIANS. 

21. The lieutenant governor in council may appoint as many fishery guardians 
as may be deemed necessary for the effectual protection of the rights granted 
by such leases. Such guardians shall be sworn to the faithful discharge of their 
duties, and especially to prevent the taking or killing, or attempting to take or 
kill, fish in the waters covered by any such lease by any person not thereunder 
entitled to so take or kill, or taking or killing, or attempting to take or kill, 
fish in any such waters by any means not permittted by the terms of such 
lease. They shall be employed for such length of time as the lieutenant governor 
in council considers necessary, and their services shall be paid for by the 
] essee or lessees in such proportions and at such times and in such manner as 
may be determined by the lieutenant governor in council. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 15.) 

22. If thereunto required by the commissioner, a lessee shall keep and main- 
tain at his own expense within the limits granted to or conferred upon him by 
a fishery lease and for such time or times as the commissioner may in that 
behalf prescribe, one or more efficient guardians, whose duties shall in all 
respects be the same as those of the guardians in the last preceding section 
mentioned. ( 1901, ch. 25, sec. 20 ; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 16. ) 

lessee's obligations and duties. 

23. Any fishery lease or fishing license held by any person convicted of any 
contravention of this act or of any of the conditions of any lease or license issued 
thereunder may be annulled and canceled by the commissioner, and thereupon 
such person shall forfeit all his rights and privileges under such lease or 
license and shall not be entitled to or have any claim or right to any indemnity 
or compensation in respect thereof. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 21 ; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 17.) 

24. Every lessee shall be answerable for damage done to the lands in the lease 
described and the timber growing thereon, or on adjoining lands, either by him- 
self or his agents or any person under his control, either from, waste or from 
want of sufficient precaiition in lighting, watching over, or extinguishing fires, 
and it shall be incumbent on every lessee in case of damage caused by fire to 
prove that all such precautions have been taken. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 22.) 

25. Section 19 shall not apply to any person entering upon or passing over 
lands in said section mentioned in discharge of any duty imposed by law, nor, 
when the lands are included in a timber license, to the holder thereof, who shall 
at all times have the right to cut and take away all trees, timber, and lumber 
within the limits of his license ; nor to prevent the owners or occupiers of 
land bordering on any waters using a general right of passage to and from 
such waters, nor to prevent the public use of any waters or the banks thereof 
either for the conveyance of timber and lumber of any kind or for the free 
navigation thereof by vessels, boats, or other craft ; nor to any user under 
license by the crown of such lands or waters for any purpose or occupation not 
inconsistent with the provisions of this act. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 24, subsec. 2.) 

26. It shall be the duty of every lessee who takes fish for commercial purposes, 
at the end of the fishing season and not later than the 31st of January in 
the following year, to transmit by registered letter to the commissioner a 
statement showing the amount in weight of each of the different kinds of fish 
caught bv such lessee during the said fishing season. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 31; 
1902, ch. 25, sec. 21. ) 

INSPECTION. 

27. Every person fishing in provincial waters under or by virtue of a fishery 
lease, fishing license, or permit shall, whenever requested by any fishery officer 
so to do, permit the inspection and examination of all fishing implements and 
apparatus used by him ; and in case any such person shall refuse to allow such 
inspection and examination, the fishery officer shall have power, and is hereby 
authorized, with or without a search warrant, to examine such implements and 
apparatus, and for that purpose to enter upon any building, boat, car, or other 
place where such implements or apparatus are or are reputed to be, whether 
within the limits covered by such lease, license, or permit or not; and in case 
such person shall be found to have in his possession any fishing implements or 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 153 

apparatus not permitted by the terms of such lease, license, or permit, the fishery 

officer shall have power to take, confiscate; ami destroy such implements or 
apparatus: Provided, however, That this section shall only operate in respect 
of any Crown lands held under a provincial lease, license, or permit, the condi- 
tions of which may set forth the kind of implements or apparatus permitted to be 
used for fishing thereunder. (1902, ch, I'd, sec. I'd. | 

28. Any person who shall obstruct, hinder, delay, or interfere with any fishery 
commissioner, overseer, or officer appointed under this act in the discharge of 
his duty under the provisions of this act. or while enforcing or attempting to 
enforce or while acting under any act or regulation of Canada relating to fish, 
fishing, or fisheries, by violence, hindrance, or by the means of threats, or by 
giving false information, or in any other manner whatsoever, shall, for each ' 
offense, be liable to the penalty provided by section 42 of this act, and costs; 
and in default of payment of such fines and costs shall be imprisoned tor a 
period not exceeding six months. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 29.) 

*29. The finding of any nets, fishing devices, or other articles set or maintained 
in violation of this act shall be prima facie evidence of the guilt of the person 
or persons owning, possessing, or operating the same. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 30.) 

RULES AND REGULATIONS. 

30. The lieutenant governor in council may from time to time make regula- 
tions, and may from time to time vary, amend, alter, or repeal all and every 
such regulation as may be found expedient for the better management and regu- 
lation of Crown lands leased under this act, or the regulations made thereunder, 
and the fishing rights thereto pertaining, or for the regulation of any fishing 
lease, license, or permit which may lie made or granted by virtue of this act, or 
of the said regulations, and to prevent the destruction of fish, and to forbid 
fishing in any waters within the Province, except under authority of a fishing 
lease, permit, or license, and for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this 
act into effect ; and all regulations so made shall have the same force and 
effect as if herein contained and enacted, and every offense against any such 
regulation may be stated as having been made in contravention of this act. 
(1902, ch. 26, sec. 8.) 

31. The publication of any regulation in the Gazette shall be sufficient notice 
to give legal effect to the same, and the production of a copy of the paper pur- 
porting to be the Gazette and containing any such regulation shall be admitted 
in all courts as sufficient evidence of such regulation. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 10.) 

32. All nets shall have the name of the owner or owners legibly marked on 
two pieces of metal or wood attached to the same, and such mark shall be pre- 
served on such nets during the fishing season in such manner as to he visible 
without taking up the net or nets ; and any net used without such mark shall be 
liable to confiscation: Provided, however, That this section shall only apply to 
nets owned by any person fishing in provincial waters under or by virtue of a 
lease, license, or permit and used by such person under the conditions thereof, 
and that all fishery leases, fishing licenses, and permits granted or issued under 
this act shall be deemed to be subject to this section. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 33; 
1902, ch. 26, sec. 22.) 

33. No fish or fish spawn shall be taken in any manner from provincial waters 
for the purpose of stocking, artificial breeding, or for scientific purposes without 
a written permit to do so, signed by the commissioner, subject always to any 
regulations or restrictions made or prescribed by or under any lawful authority 
in that behalf. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 19.) 

34. No common carrier or other person shall receive or have in his possession 
or shall ship or transport to any point or place any fish caught or killed within 
the Province at a time or in a manner prohibited by this act or by regulations 
made under this act. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 36; 1902, ch. 36, sec. 24.) 

35. All fish companies and fish dealers purchasing fish direct from the lessees 
or licensees under this act shall keep a record, in form approved by the commis- 
sioner, of the different kinds and quantities of fish taken or caught in provincial 
waters and purchased by them, with the date, name, and address of the person 
from whom purchased, such book to be open for the inspection of the commis- 
sioner or his deputy at all reasonable times. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 37; 1902, ch. 26, 
sec. 25. ) 

36. The lieutenant governor in council may authorize to be set apart and to 
be leased any waters for the natural or artificial propagation of fish, and any 
person who willfully destroys or injures any place so set apart or used for the 



154 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

propagation of fish therein, without written permission from said commissioner 
or his deputy, or from the lessee or licensee thereof, or uses therein a fishing 
light or other like implement for fishing, or fishes therein, during the period for 
which the waters are so set apart, shall, for every offense, incur and pay a fine 
not exceeding $200, with costs, and in default of immediate payment of such 
fine and costs shall be imprisoned in the common gaol of the county or district 
wherein the offense was committed, or in which the conviction was made, for a 
period not exceeding six months. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 26; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 18.) 

37. The lieutenant governor in council may authorize to be expended annually 
any sum appropriated by the legislature for the formation of oyster beds in 
various waters and waters adapted for that purpose, and for transplanting 
oysters and restocking oyster and other exhausted fisheries by natural or arti- 
ficial means, and for improving streams where natural obstructions exist, and 
may authorize the construction, erection, or placing of any artificial barrier or 
grating in any stream or river, or in any watercourse, and in the channels or 
beds thereof. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 54; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 32.) 

38. Shellfish fisheries shall be subject to the provisions of this act and any 
regulation made under it. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 55.) 

DISPUTES. 

39. Disputes between persons operating fisheries in provincial waters under 
a lease, license, or permit relative to fishing limits or claims to fishery locations 
or stations, granted by any such lease, license, or permit, or relative to the posi- 
tion and use of nets as may be permitted by such lease, license, or permit, shall 
be settled by the local fishery overseer, subject to appeal to the commissioner. 
(1902, ch. 26, sec. 23.) 

OFFENSES AND PENALTIES. 

40. Contravention, on any day, of any of the provisions of this act, or of any 
regulations made under the authority thereof, as limited by section 30 hereof, 
by the lieutenant governor in council, shall constitute a separate offense, and 
may be punished accordingly. (1902, ch. 26, sec. 28.) 

41. When not otherwise specified, every proprietor, owner, agent, tenant, occu- 
pant, partner, or person actually in charge, either as occupant or servant, shall 
be jointly and severally liable for any penalties or moneys recoverable under 
any of the provisions of this act or any regulations made thereunder. (1901, 
ch. 25, sec. 35.) 

42. Where any of the provisions of this act, or any regulations made under 
section 30 of this act by the authority of the lieutenant governor in council, 
are contravened, and no other penalty is herein provided for such contraven- 
tion, the person guilty of such contravention shall, on conviction thereof, incur 
and pay a fine of not exceeding $50 and not less than $10, and for a second or 
subsequent offense of not exceeding $100 and not less than $20, with costs of 
prosecution ; and in default of immediate payment of such fine and costs shall 
be imprisoned in the common gaol of the county or district within which the 
offense was committed or in which the conviction was made for a period not 
exceeding six months. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 38; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 26.) 

43. All prosecutions for the punishment of any offense under this act may 
take place before any fishery overseer, stipendiary or police magistrate, or two 
of His Majesty's justices of the peace having jurisdiction in the county or dis- 
trict in which the offense is committed. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 39.) 

44. Where an offense under this act is committed in, upon, or near any 
waters forming the boundary between different counties or districts, such 
offenses may be prosecuted before any magistrate, justices, commissioner, or 
overseer for either of such contiguous counties or districts. (1901, ch. 25, 
sec. 40.) 

45. Any fishery overseer or magistrate may, on view or otherwise, convict 
for any offense against the provisions of this act, or of any regulation made 
thereunder as limited by section 30 hereof, and shall instantly capture and 
detain or destroy all seines or nets or other materials and articles illegally 
set or in use which are shown to have been illegally in use. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 
41 ; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 27. ) 

PROSECUTIONS AND PROCEDURE THEREON. 

46. Any person may be the prosecutor or complainant in prosecutions under 
this act ; and it shall be the duty of every fishery overseer, constable, and 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 155 

peace officer, and every panic ami deputy game warden to aid in the observ- 
ance of the provisions of this act and in bringing offenders to justice. (1901, 
ch. 25, sec. 43.) 

-17. The following provisions shall have effect with-respect to summary pro- 
ceedings for offenses, lines, and penalties under this act: 

(1) The information or complaint shall be laid within three months alter 
the commission of the offense. 

(2) The description of an offense, in the words either of this act, or of any 
any regulation made by authority thereof, or in any similar words, shall be 
sufficient in law. 

(3) Any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse, or qualification, whether or 
not it accompanies the description of the offense, in this act, or in any regu- 
lation made by authority thereof, may he proved by the defendant, hut 
need not lie specified or negatived in the information or complaint, and, if 
so specified or negatived, no proof in relation to the matter so specified or 
negatived shall he required on the part of the informant or complainant. 
(1901. ch. 25. sec. 44.) 

48. Upon hearing of any information or complaint exhibited or made un- 
der this act. the person giving or making the information or complaint shall 
be a competent witness, notwithstanding that such person may he entitled 
to part of the pecuniary penalty on the conviction of the offender. (1901, ch. 
25. sec. 45. subsec. (1).) . 

49. On the trial of any complaint, proceeding, matter, or question under this 
act. the person opposing or defending, or who is charged with any offense 
against or under any of the provisions of this act, shall be competent and 
compellable to give evidence in or with respect to such complaint, proceed- 
ing, matter, or question ; and on any such trial no person, witness, or party 
shall be. excused from answering any question upon the ground that the an- 
swer to such question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish 
his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or any other 
person: Prodded, however, That no evidence so given shall be used or re- 
ceivable in evidence against such person in any criminal proceeding thereafter 
instituted against him other than a prosecution for perjury in giving such 
evidence. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 45, subsec. (2).) 

50. In default of the payment of any penalty imposed by this act, and costs, 
by any person convicted of any offense under this act, the offender may be 
committed to the common gaol of the district or county where the offense was 
committed, or in which the conviction w T as made, for a period not exceeding six 
months, unless the penalty and costs, and the costs and charges of the commit- 
ment and conveying the defendant to prison are sooner paid, and the amount of 
such costs and charges of commitment and conveying the offender to prison 
shall be ascertained and stated in the warrant of commitment. (1901, ch. 
25, sec. 46.) 

51. Save where otherwise provided by this act all the provisions and forms 
authorized under the summary convictions act shall apply, as far as they may 
be applicable, to all prosecutions and proceedings under this act. where not in- 
consistent with this act. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 47.) 

52. A conviction or order made in any matter arising under this act, either 
originally or on appeal, shall not be quashed for want of form, and a convic- 
tion or order made by a court of summary jurisdiction, against which a person 
is authorized to appeal, shall not be removed by certiorari or otherwise, either 
at the instance of the Crown or of any private person into the supreme court, 
except for the purpose of the hearing and determination of a special case. 
(1901. ch. 25, sec. 48.) 

53. One-half of every fine or penalty imposed by virtue of this act shall belong 
to His Majesty for the uses of the Province, and the remaining half shall be 
paid to the prosecutor, together with any costs taxed to him by the convicting 
magistrate or justice in respect "thereof . (1901. ch. 25. sec. 49.) 

54. All vessels, boats, canoes, rafts, vehicles of any description, fishing gear, 
rods, line, tackle, seines, nets, or other material, apparatus, or appliances used. 
and all fish had or taken, in contravention of this act. or any regulation made 
thereunder, and all other fish legally taken, caught, killed, conveyed, bought, 
sold, or had in possession, and of whatever size and description, which are in- 
termixed therewith, shall be confiscated to His Majesty for the use of the 
Province, and may be seized and confiscated and sold or destroyed on view, 
or otherwise, by any fishery commissioner, overseer, or officer, and may be 
taken and removed, by any person, for delivery to any magistrate or fishery 



156 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

commissioner, overseer, or officer ; and the proceeds thereof shall belong to His 
Majesty for the use of the Province, and may be applied toward defraying 
expenses incurred under the provisions of this act. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 50.) 

55. The moiety of every fine or penalty belonging to His Majesty for the uses 
of the Province, and all proceeds derived from the sale of articles confiscated 
to His Majesty under this act shall be paid over to the minister of finance and 
agriculture, and shall be applied toward the expenses incurred in carrying out 
the provisions of this act. 1901, ch. 25, sec. 51 ; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 29.) 

56. Persons aggrieved by any conviction or confiscation under this act may 
appeal, by petition, to the lieutenant governor in council, who shall have power 
to remit fines and penalties and restore forfeitures under this act. (1901, ch. 
25, sec. 52; 1902, ch. 26, sec. 30.) 

POWER TO ACCEPT DOMINION RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. 

57. The lieutenant governor in council may make such provision as he deems 
necessary for obtaining, receiving, and taking over from the government of the 
Dominion or from the department of marine and fisheries all records, archives, 
documents, books, books of account, applications, correspondence, regulations, 
orders in council, or any other documents or writing, or copies of any and all of 
the above, in any way relating to the fisheries of this Province, and for all such 
purposes connected with the said fisheries may cause all such searches and 
examinations to be made as may be found necessary. (1901, ch. 25, sec. 56.) 

[Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, vol. 1, p. 715.] 

Chapter 45 — An Act Respecting Fisheries and Fishing. 

short title. 

1. This act may be cited as the fisheries act. (It. S., ch. 95, sec. 1.) 

5. Nothing in this act contained shall preclude the granting by the minister 
of written permission to obtain fish and fish spawn for purposes of stocking 
or artificial breeding or for scientfic purposes. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 21.) 

FISHERY LEASES AND LICENSES. 

8. The minister may, wherever the exclusive right of fishing does not already 
exist by law, issue or authorize to be issued fishery leases and licenses for 
fisheries and fishing, wheresoever situated or carried on ; but leases or licenses 
for any term exceeding nine years shall be issued only under authority of the 
governor in council. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 4.) 

WHALE FISHING. 

9. No one shall at any time engage in the manufacture from whales of oil 
or other commercial product, and no vessel or boat shall be employed in the 
whale fishery, except under license from the minister. 

2. The minister may issue licenses to manufacture oil or other commercial 
product from whales and to employ boats or vessels in whale fishery, but no 
such license shall issue until — 

(a) The minister has approved of the site of the factory, which shall not be 
within 50 miles of any other whale factory, or in such proximity to any in- 
habited place or places as, in the opinion of the minister, may cause danger 
or detriment to the public health ; ( b ) the applicant therefor has given assur- 
ances to the minister, of a satisfactory nature, that he is in a position to con- 
vert any whale captured into commercial products within 24 hours of the 
landing of such whale, and that he is also in a position to conduct his whale 
factory and business in such a manner that no noxious or deleterious matter 
will be introduced into any public waters, bays, creeks, rivers, or harbors; (c) 
the applicant lias tiled with the minister plans and specifications of the ma- 
chinery to be contained in the proposed factory, and the particulars of the re- 
duction process; (<1) the applicant has satisfied the minister that the ma- 
chinery proposed to bo used is of a kind already proved efficient for such pur- 
poses and of the most approved type theretofore used in the whaling industry. 

3. No license shall be for a period exceeding nine years, but the governor in 
council may renew a license in favor of the licensee from time to time for 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 157 

periods of nine years upon receipt of an application in writing for a renewal 
six months previously to the termination of the current period. 

4. The holder of any such license shall not operate more than one whaling 
Steamer in connection with the whale factory under license. 

•~>. The license shall become void and forfeited unless the factory named 
therein is erected, equipped, and working within two years from the date of 
tin' issue of the license. 

6. The fee charged on each such license shall he $800 for the first year, 
$1,000 for the second year, and $1,200 for the third and each ensuing year, and 
the fee on all suhsequent licenses for the same factory shall be $1,200; such 
fee shall he payable to the minister of marine and fisheries first on the issue 
of the license and on the 1st day of July in each year thereafter: Provided, 
That the governor in council, after the first two years, may exact in lieu of 
such fee a sum equal to 2 per cent of the gross earnings of each factory, which 
shall be payable as aforesaid. 

7. Every license, upon cause shown, after one month's notice in writing 
to the licensee, shall be liable to forfeiture for any infraction of this section 
or any regulation under it, or for failure to fulfill and carry out the assurances 
required by this section to be given to the minister previously to the issuing of 
n license, and in the case of forfeiture the minister may, without any suit 
J>r other proceedings at law and without compensation, cancel the license. 

8. The governor in council may from time to time make such regulations as 
to him seem necessary for carrying out and enforcing any of the provisions of 
this section and for controlling and regulating the manufactures carried on in 
the licensed factories and the disposal of all refuse therefrom. 

9. Boats known as towbdats shall not be used by anyone in the prosecution 
of the whaling industry, and no vessel other than the vessel from which the 
whales have been captured or killed shall, by any method or contrivance, bring 
or tow into port any whale for manufacture or other purpose, but nothing 
in this section shall prevent anyone other than the bolder of a license or his 
employees from towing any dead whale to land and having it manufactured 
or otherwise disposing of it in accordance with the provisions of this section. 

10. No one shall pursue, capture, shoot, or kill any whale within the distance 
of one-half nautical mile of any vessel or boat not at anchor or engaged in any 
kind of fishing or within 1 nautical mile of any vessel or boat at anchor or 
engaged in any kind of fishing. 

11. No one shall have in his possession, or use in the catching or killing of 
whales any contrivance which does not include a harpoon, with a whaling line 
attached thereto, fixed or fastened to the boat or vessel from which the whale is 
captured or killed. 

12. Notwithstanding anything in this section, the license fee payable for any 
vessel or boat engaged in the whale fishery or hunting whales within the waters 
of Hudson Bay, or the territorial waters of Canada north of the fifty-fifth parallel 
of north latitude, is not so engaged or hunting in connection with a factory 
established in Canada, shall be $50 for each year ; and, inasmuch as Hudson Bay 
is wholly territorial water of Canada, the requirements of this section as to 
licensing, and as to the fee payable therefor, shall apply to every vessel or boat 
engaged in the whale fishery or hunting whales in any part of the waters of 
Hudson Bay, whether such vessel or boat belongs to Canada, or is registered and 
outfitted in, or commences her voyage from, any other British or foreign country. 
(4 E. VII. ch. 13. sec. 1 ; 6 E. VII, ch. 13, sec. 1.) 

SALMON FISHERY. 

15. Meshes of nets used for capturing salmon shall be at least 5 inches in 
extent, and nothing shall be done to practically diminish their size. (R. S., 
ch. 0."!. sec. S.) 

16. The use of nets or other apparatus for the capture of salmon shall be 
confined to tidal water, and any fishery officer may determine the length and 
place of each net or other apparatus used in any of the waters of Canada. 

(2) No one shall fish for or catch salmon with swing nets in any waters of 
Canada. (52 V., ch. 24, sec. 1.) 

17. The minister, or any fishery officer duly authorized, shall have power to 
define the tidal boundary of the estuarv fishing for the purposes of this act. 
(R. S., ch. 95. sec. 8.) 

18. All nets or other lawful appliances for the capture of salmon shall be 
placed at distances of not less than 250 yards apart, without intermediate fishing 



158 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

materials of any kind being set or used in and about any other part of the stream. 
(R. S., ch. 95, sec. 8.) 

19. No one shall drift for salmon, except when under license in the Provinces 
of New Brunswick and British Columbia. 

(2) In the Province of British Columbia drifting with salmon nets shall be 
confined to tidal waters. 

(3) Drift nets for salmon shall be so set or used as not to obstruct more than 
one-third of the width of any river. (57-58 V., ch. 51, sec. 2.) 

20. Any fishery officer may direct, either in writing or orally on sight, that 
a greater space than 2,050 yards shall be left between salmon nets or other 
fishing apparatus, and may prescribe their dimensions and extension ; but gill 
or float nets shall not be used to lengthen, extend, or enlarge any other kind 
of fishery- (R- S., ch. 95. sec. 8.) 

21. No salmon shall be captured within 200 yards of the mouth of any tribu- 
tary, creek, or stream which salmon frequent to spawn. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 8.) 

22. Except in the manner known as fly surface fishing with a rod and line, 
salmon shall not be fished for, caught, or killed at any artificial pass or salmon 
leap, or in any pool where salmon spawn. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 8.) 

23. Except under the authority and for the special purpose provided for in 
this act, no one shall take, buy, sell, destroy, use, or possess any salmon roe, or, 
injure any spawning bed. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 8.) 

TROUT AND WHITEFISH FISHERY. 

29. In the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta and the North- 
west or Yukon Territories, Indians may, at any time, catch or kill speckled 
trout for their own use only, but not for the purposes of sale or traffic. (R. S., 
ch. 95, sec. 9.) 

30. Nothing herein contained shall prevent — 

(a) The taking or the use of small-sized trout for the purpose of baiting 
traps ; or, 

(b) The taking and using the same by fishermen as bait for cod fishing in 
tidal waters; or, 

(c) Subject fishermen to penalty if by accident in fishing for herrings or 
whitefish, by means of nets, trout are inclosed or taken. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 9.) 

33. Gill nets for catching salmon, trout, or whitefish shall have meshes of at 
least 5 inches extension measure. 

2. Gill nets shaR not be set within 2 miles of any seining ground. (R. S. 
ch. 95, sec. 10.) 

34. Seines for catching whitefish shall have meshes of not less than 4 inches 
extension measure. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 10.) 

POSSESSION OF FISH. 

44. No one shall, without lawful excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, 
buy, sell, or possess any fish, or portion of any fish named in this act, caught or 
killed at a time or in a manner prohibited by law. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 12.) 

45. Every customs officer, excise officer, police officer, or constable, clerk of 
a market, or other person in charge of any market place in any village, town, 
or city, shall seize and, upon view, confiscate to his own proper use any fish 
mentioned in this act caught or killed during prohibited seasons or which 
appears to have been killed by unlawful means. 

2. Every such seizure and appropriation, with the date, place, and circum- 
stances thereof, shall, together with the name, residence, and calling of the 
person in whose possession such fish was found, be duly reported to the fishery 
officer Avho has jurisdiction over the district within which such seizure, confisca- 
tion, and appropriation took place. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 12.) 

CONSTRUCTION OF FISHWAYS. 

46. Every dam, slide, or other obstruction across or in any stream where the 
minister determines it to be necessary for the public interest that a fish pass 
should exist, shall be provided by the owner or occupier with a durable and 
efficient fishway, which shall be maintained in practical and effective condition, 
in such place and of such form and capacity as will admit of the passage of 
fish through the same. 



ALASKA FISHEKIES. 159 

(2) The place, form, and capacity of the fishway may be prescribed by any 
fishery officer by notice in writing. 

(3) Fisiiways shall be kept open and unobstructed and shall be supplied with 
a sufficient quantity of water to fulfill the purposes of this enactment during 
such times as are required by any fishery officer. 

(4) The minister may authorize the payment of one-half of the expense 
incurred by such owner or occupier in constructing and maintaining any fishway. 

(5) The minister, in order to procure the construction of any fishway. pendi 
proceedings against any owner or occupier for the penalty imposed by this act, 
may give directions to make and complete the same forthwith, and may authorize 
any person to enter upon the premises with the necessary workmen, means, and 
materials, and may recover from the owner or occupier the whole expense so 
incurred by action before any competent tribunal. 

(6) No person shall injure or obstruct any fishway or do anything to deter or 
hinder fish from entering and ascending or descending the same, or injure or 
obstruct any authorized harrier. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 13.) 

GENERAL PROHIBITIONS. 

47. No one shall fish for, take, catch or kill fish in any water, or along any 
beach, or within any fishery limits, described in any lease or license, or place, 
use, draw, or set therein any fishing, gear or apparatus, except by permission of 
the occupant under such lease or license for the time being, or shall disturb or 
injure any fishery: Provided, That the occupation of any fishing station or 
waters so leased or licensed for the express purpose of net fishing shall not intern 
fere with the taking of bait used for cod fishing, or prevent angling for other 
purposes than those of trade and commerce. 

(2) Seines, nets, or other fishing apparatus shall not be set in such a manner 
or in such places as to obstruct the navigation with boats and vessels, and no 
boats or vessels shall be permitted to destroy or wantonly injure in any way 
any seines, nets, or other fishing apparatus lawfully set. 

(3) Every person using stakes or other timber placed for fishing purposes in 
any water shall remove the same within 48 hours after ceasing to use them, and 
in all cases at the expiry of the fishing season. 

(4) The main channel or course of any stream shall not be obstructed by any 
nets or other fishing apparatus ; and one-third of the course of any river or stream v 
and not less than two-thirds of the main channel at low tide, in every tidal 
stream, shall be always left open, and no kind of fishing apparatus or material 
shall be used or placed therein: Provided, That the use of weirs for catching 
eels exclusively, and the use of milldams for catching eels, shall be prevented 
only in cases where, and at times when, they injure other fisheries or, by eom« 
pletely barring any passage, they deprive other weirs of a share in the run of 
eels ; and such place, time, and circumstances may be determined by any fishery 
officer. 

(5.) No net or other device shall be so used as entirely to obstruct the passage 
of fish to or from any of the waters of Canada, by any of the ordinary channels 
connecting such waters, or prevent their passage to and from accustomed 
resorts for spawning and the increasing of their species. 

(6) No one shall catch, kill, or molest fish when passing or attempting to pass 
through any fishway or fish pass, or in surmounting any obstacle or leap, or 
shall use any invention to catch, kill, or molest fish in the milldams, fishways, 
mill heads, or watercourses appurtenant thereto. 

(7) No one shall use a bag net, trap net, or fish pound, except under a 
special license, granted for capturing deep-sea fish other than salmon. 

(5) No one shall fish for, catch, or kill salmon, trout, or lunge of any kind, 
maskinonge, winanische, bass, barfish, pickerel, whitefish, herring, or shad, by 
means of spear, grapnel hooks, negog, or nishagans: Provided, That the minister 
may appropriate and license or lease certain waters in which certain Indians 
shall he allowed to catch fish for their own use in the manner and at the time 
specified in the license or lease, and may permit spearing in certain localities. 

(9) No one shall fish for. catch, kill, buy, sell, or possess the young of any of 
the fish mentioned in this act, or in any regulation under it. 

(10) Seines for barfish shall have meshes of not less than 3 inches in exten- 
sion measure. 

(11) Fishery officers may determine or prescribe the distance between each 
and every fishery (pecherie) and shall forthwith remove any fishery which the 
owner neglects or refuses to remove ; and such owner shall be moreover liable 



160 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

for a violation of this act and for the cost and damages of removing such 
fishery. 

(12) Every fascine fishery with a box trap (coffre), instead of pound, shall 
have across the outside end of such box trap a wire covering or a network, 
the meshes of which shall be at least 1 inch square ; but this shall not apply 
to eel weirs during autumn. 

(13) Nets or other fishing apparatus shall not be so used as to impede or 
divert the course of fish in any small river. 

(14) From the time of low water nearest 6 of the clock in the afternoon of 
every Saturday, to the time of low water nearest 6 of the clock in the forenoon 
of every Monday, in tidal waters, and from 6 of the clock in the afternoon of 
every Saturday to 6 of the clock in the forenoon of the following Monday, in 
nontidal waters, all sedentary fishing stations and weirs and all pound and 
trap nets, seines, gill nets, and other apparatus used for catching fish, whether 
Under license or not, shall be so raised, closed, or adapted as to admit of the 
free passage of fish through, by, or out of such apparatus ; and during such 
closed time no one shall catch fish in such apparatus whether under license or 
hot. 

(15) No one shall hunt or kill fish or marine animals of any kind, other 
than porpoises, whales, and walruses, by means of rockets, explosive materials, 
or explosive projectiles or shells. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 14; 61 vol., ch. 39, sec. 1; 
8 E. VII, ch. 23, sec. 1.) 

48. No one shall use purse seines for the capture of fish in any of the waters of 
Canada : Provided, That the minister may issue special fishery licenses for the 
Use of purse seines in certain waters in the Province of British Columbia 
(Specified in the said licenses. (3 E. VII, ch. 23, sec. 2.) 

49. No one shall erect, use, or maintain in any of the waters of Canada, 
whether subject to any exclusive right of fishery or not, any net, weir, facine 
fishery, or other device which unduly obstructs the passage of fish ; and the 
minister or any fishery officer may order the removal of or remove any net, 
weir, facine fishery, or other device which, in the opinion of such minister or 
fishery officer, unduly obstructs the passage of fish. (57-58 V, ch. 51, sec. 5.) 

51. No one shall catch fish for the purpose of using it as manure. (57-58 V, 
ch. 51, sec. 5.) 

52. Whenever the size of the meshes of nets or apparatus for the capture of 
fish is fixed by this act, or by any fishery regulation under it, it shall be unlawful 
to so arrange or adapt the nets or fishing apparatus as to practically diminish 
the size of such meshes. (61 V, ch. 39, sec. 2.) 

INJURIES TO FISHING GEOUNDS AND POLLUTION OF RIVERS. 

53. No one shall throw overboard ballast, coal ashes, stones, or other prejudi- 
cial or deleterious substances in any river, harbor, or roadstead or any water 
where fishing is carried on, or throw overboard or let fall upon any fishing bank 
or ground, or leave or deposit or cause to be thrown, left, or deposited upon the 
Eh ore, beach, or bank of any water, or upon the beach between high and low 
Water mark, inside of any tidal estuary, or within 200 yards of the mouth of any 
salmon river, remains or offal of fish, or of marine animals, or leave decayed or 
decaying fish in any net or other fishing apparatus: Provided, That such re- 
mains or offal may be buried ashore, beyond high-water mark, and that at 
establishments situated inside of the mouths of rivers for carrying on deep-sea 
fisheries, the same may be dropped into perforated boxes or inclosures built upon 
the beach or under stage heads in such manner as to prevent the same from 
being floated or drifted into the streams, or may be disposed of in such other 
manner as any fishery officer prescribes. 

2. No person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass into, or put or know- 
ingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, 
dead or decaying fish, or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any 
other deleterious substance, in any water frequented by any of the kinds of 
fish mentioned in this act. (Ii. S., ch. 95, sec. 15; 58-59 V, ch. 27, sec. 1.) 

REGULATIONS. 

54. The governor in council may, from time to time, make regulations — 

{a) For the better management and regulation of the seacoast and inland 
fisheries. 

( b ) To prevent, or remedy the obstruction and pollution of streams. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 161 

(c) To regulate and prevent fishing. 

((/) To prohibit the destruction of fish; and 

(e) To forbid fishing, except under authority of leases or licenses. 

(2) Such regulations shall take effect from the date of the publication 
thereof in the Canada Gazette and shall have the same force and effect as if 
herein enacted, notwithstanding that such regulations extend, vary, or alter 
any of the provisions of this act respecting the places or modes of fishing or the 
times specified as prohibited or close seasons and may fix such others modes, 
times, and places as are deemed by the governor in council adapted to different 
localities, or otherwise expedient. 

(3) Every offense against any regulation made under this act may be 
stated as in violation of this act. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 16.) 

POWERS OF FISHERY OFFICERS AND OTHER JUSTICES. 

55. Any fishery officer or other justice of the peace may, on view, convict of 
any of the offenses punishable under the provisions of this act and may remove 
instantly and detain any materials unlawfully in use. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 17.) 

56. Any fishery officer or other justice of the peace may search, or grant a 
warrant to search, any vessel or place where there is reason to believe that any 
fish taken in violation of this act, or anything used in violation thereof, is 
concealed. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 17.) 

58. In the discharge of his duties any fishery officer or other person or per* 
sons accompanying him or authorized to such effect may enter upon and pass 
through or over private property without being liable to trespass. (R. S., ch, 
95, sec. 17.) 

59. Disputes between persons relative to fishing limits or claims to fishery 
stations, or relative to the position and use of nets and other fishing apparatus, 
shall be settled by the local fishery officer. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 17.) 

60. Gurry grounds may be designated or defined by any fishery officer, 
(R. S., ch. 95, sec. 17.) 

61. Any fishery officer, stipendiary magistrate, or commissioned officer of His 
Majesty's Navy, on board of any vessel belonging to or chartered by the Govern- 
ment of Canada, employed in the service of protecting fisheries, and every com- 
missioned officer of His Majesty's Navy serving on board of any vessel cruising 
and being in the waters, harbors, or ports of Canada, shall, for the purpose of 
affording protection to His Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries and of 
enforcing any laws relating to such fisheries, exercise the powers of a justice 
of the peace, without property qualifications and without taking any oath of 
office, in all the waters, harbors, or ports, and on all the coasts of Canada where, 
for the time being and for the purposes above described, they are so engaged, 
(R. S., ch. 95, sec. 17.) 



65. The minister may authorize to be set apart or to be leased any river or 
other water for the natural or artificial propagation of fish. (57-58 V., ch. 51, 
sec. 10.) 

66. Lessees or licensees of fisheries shall have no claim to renewal of leases or 
licenses if in arrears of rent or percentage during four months after the same 
is due, and any lessee or licenses convicted of a violation of this act, or any regu- 
lation under it. shall be liable to forfeit his lease or license. (R. S., ch. 95, 
sec. 21.) 

67. Special licenses and leases for any term of years may be granted to any 
person who wishes to plant or form oyster beds in any of the bays, inlets, har- 
bors, creeks, or rivers, or between any of the islands on the coast of Canada ; 
and the holder of any such lease or license shall have the exclusive right to the 
oysters produced or found on the beds within the limits of such lease or license, 
(R. S.. ch. 9."», sec. 21.) 

6S. The minister may authorize to lie expended annually any such appro- 
priated by Parliament, for — 

(c) Improving streams where natural obstructions exist; and may authorize 
the construction, erection, or placing of any artificial barrier or grating in any 
stream or river, or in any watercourse, and in the channels or beds thereof. 
(R. S.. ch. 95, sec. 21.) 

.69. Every subject of His Majesty may use vacant public property, such as by 
law is common and accessory to public rights of fishery and navigation, for the 
purposes of landing, salting, curing, and drying fish, and may cut wood thereon 



162 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

for such purposes, and no other person shall occupy the same station unless it 
has been abandoned by the first occupant for 12 consecutive months'; and at the 
expiration of that period any new oecupier shall pay the value of flakes and 
stages and other property thereon, of which he takes possession, or the build- 
ings and improvements may be removed by the original owner. 

(2) All subjects of His Majesty may take bait or fish in any of the harbors 
or roadsteads, creeks or rivers, subject to the provisions of this act respecting 
the leasing or licensing of fisheries and fishing stations. 

(3) No property leased or licensed shall be deemed vacant. (R. S., ch. 95, 
Bee. 22.) 

PKOTECTION OF F1SHEKMEN. 

70. No dory, flat, whaler, or other boat whatsoever shall set out from any 
Vessel engaged in deep-sea or bank fishing, or be launched therefrom for the 
purpose of fishing with hooks and lines, trawls or other similar appliances, or 
With intent that the same shall be* used in so fishing, or for the purpose of 
examining trawls, set lines, or other similar appliances for fishing, unless 
there is placed in such boat, to be retained therein during absence from such 
vessel, a mariner's compass, nor unless there is placed in such boat at least 
2 quarts of drinking water and 2 pounds of solid food for each man of the crew 
of such boat. 

(2) The owner of such vessel shall supply her at the commencement of her 
voyage with as many serviceable mariner's compasses as she carries boats, in 
addition to the vessel's compass, and also with the necessary utensils for hold- 
ing water and with a serviceable fog horn or trumpet. (61 V., ch. 44, sec. 1.) 

OFFENSES AND PENALTIES. 

71. Everyone shall incur a penalty not exceeding $500 and not less than $300 
who at any time, except under license from the minister — 

(a) Engages in the manufacture from whales of oil or other commercial 
product ; or 

(b) Employs any vessel or boat in the whale fishery. (4 E. VII, ch. 13, 
sec. 1.) 

72. Everyone who hunts or kills fish or marine animals of any kind, other 
than porpoises, whales, and walruses, by means of rockets, explosive materials, 
or explosive projectiles or shells, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $300 
and cost, and in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 
Six months. (3 E. VII, ch. 23, sec. 1.) 

73. Everyone who violates any provision of this act relating to whale fishing 
or of the regulations made thereunder, for which violation no penalty is herein 
specially provided, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $200 and not less 
than $50. 

(2) All machinery and apparatus and all vessels and boats, and their tackle, 
apparel, and furniture, used in such violation shall be confiscated to His 
Majesty. (4 E. VII, ch. 13, sees. 12 and 13.) 

74. Everyone who, with boat or vessel, during the time of fishing for seals, 
knowingly or willfully disturbs, impedes, or injures any sedentary seal fishery, 
or prevents, hinders, or frightens the shoals of seals coining into such fishery, 
Shall, for each offense, be liable to a penalty not exceeding $60, and, in default of 
payment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month ; and shall also 
be liable to pay such damages as are assessed by the fishery officer or justice 
of the peace before whom the person injured complains. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 7.) 

75. Everyone who, without the special fishery lease or license provided for 
by this act, fishes for salmon above the actual limit defined by the minister or 
fishery officer as the tidal boundary of estuary fishing, except with a rod and 
line, in the manner known as fly-surface-fishing, shall be liable to a penalty not 
exceeding $100, and, in default of payment, to imprisonment for a term not 
exceeding two months. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 8.) 

83. Every owner or occupier of a dam, slide, or other obstruction across or in 
any stream where the minister determines it to be necessary for the public 
interest that a fish pass should exist, who, after three days' notice in writing, 
neglects or refuses to provide a durable and effective fishway, or to maintain 
the same in a practical and effective condition in such place and of such form 
and capacity as will admit of the passage of fish, shall be liable to a penalty 
of $4 for each clay during which any such dam, slide, or other obstruction to the 
Stream remains unprovided with such fishway. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 13.) 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 163 

84. Except taking bait for cod fishing or angling for purposes other than those 
of trade and commerce, everyone who fishes for, takes, catches, or kills fish 
in any water or along any beach or within any fishery limits described in any 
lease or license, or places, uses, draws. <>r sets therein any fishing gear or 
apparatus, except by permission of the occupant under such lease or license 
for the time being, or disturbs or injures any fishery, shall lie liable to a penalty 
not exceeding $100 and costs, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two 
months, and the fishing apparatus so used and all fish taken or caught shall 
be forfeited, and any fishery officer or the holder of any such lease or license may, 
on view, forthwith seize and remove any net or apparatus so used, to be dealt 
with according to law. (R. S., ch. 95. .sec. 14.) 

S-"). Everyone using purse seines for the capture of fish in any of the waters 
of Canada, except as to certain waters in the Province of British Columbia 
under a special fishery license of the minister, shall be liable for each offense 
to a penalty of not less than .$50 and not exceeding $500. together with the con- 
fiscation of the vessel, boat, and apparatus used in connection with such capture. 
(3 E. VII, ch. 23, sec. 2.) 

ST. Everyone who, contrary to the provisions of this act. throws overboard 
ballast, coal ashes, stones, or other prejudicial or deleterious substances in any 
river, harbor or roadstead, or any water where fishing is carried on, or throws 
overboard or lets fall upon any fishing bank or ground, or leaves or deposits or 
causes to be thrown, left, or deposited, upon the shore, beach, or bank of any 
water, or upon the beach between high and low water mark, inside of any tidal 
estuary, or within 200 yards of the mouth of any salmon river, remains or offal 
of fish, or of marine animals, or leaves decayed or decaying fish in any net or 
other fishing apparatus, shall be liable, for each offense, to a penalty not ex- 
ceeding $100, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months ; and 
everyone so offending, whether master or servant, and the master or owner of 
any vessel or boat from which such ballast or offal or other prejudicial sub- 
stance is thrown, shall be liable to penalty and imprisonment as aforesaid for 
each such offense. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 15.) 

88. Every person who causes or knowingly permits to pass into, or puts or 
knowingly permits to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous mat- 
ter, dead or decaying fish or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust, or 
any other deleterious substance in any water frequented by any of the kinds of 
fish mentioned in this act, shall be liable, for a first offense, to a penalty of 
$20 and costs ; for the second offense, to a penalty not exceeding $40 and costs, 
and also in addition thereto a further penalty not exceeding $10 for every day 
during which such offense is continued ; and for the third or any subsequent 
offense, to a penalty not exceeding $100 and costs, and also in addition thereto 
a further penalty not exceeding $20 for every day during which such offense is 
continued. (58-59 V., ch. 27, sec. 1.) 

89. Every person who willfully destroys or injures any place set apart or 
leased under the authority of the minister for the propagation of fish, or who 
fishes therein without written permission from a fishery officer, or from the 
holder thereof under lease or license, or uses therein any fishing light or other 
implement for fishing, during the period for which such waters are so set apart 
or leased, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $200 and costs, and, in de- 
fault of payment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months. 
(57-58 V., ch. 51, sec. 10.) 

90. Everyone who takes oysters from any oyster bed, set apart by the minister 
for any purpose under this act, or in any way injures or disturbs such oyster 
beds, except during the times and on the terms permitted by regulation under 
this act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $100 and not less than $40. 
and in default of payment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two 
months and not less than one month; and the vessel and all apparatus used in 
the taking of such oysters, or the injury or disturbance of such ovster beds, 
shall be forfeited. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. 21.) \ 

91. The owner of any vessel, who (a) permits any dory, flat, whaler, or other 
boat whatsoever to set out from any vessel engaged by him in deep-sea or bank 
fishing, or to be launched therefrom for the purpose of fishing with hooks and 
lines, trawls, or other similar appliances, or with intent that the same shall be 
used in so fishing, or for the purpose of examining trawls, set lines, or other 
similar appliances for fishing, without there being placed in such boat to be re- 
tained therein during absence from such vessel a mariner's compass and at 
least 2 quarts of drinking water and 2 pounds of solid food for each man of the 



164 ALASKA FISHEBIES. 

crew of such boat; or (ft) fails to supply any vessel by him so engaged in deep- 
sea or bank fishing, at the commencement of her voyage, with as many service- 
able mariner's compasses as she carries boats, in addition to the vessel s com- 
pass and also with the necessary utensils for holding water and with a service- 
able'fog horn or trumpet shall be guilty of an offense against this act, and shall 
be liable for each offense to a penalty not exceeding $100 or to imprisonment for 
a term not exceeding two months. 

m The master of any such vessel from which a boat is launched or sets 
out in contravention of the provisions of this section shall also be guilty of an 
offense against this act, and liable therefor to a penalty not exceeding $100 or 
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months. (61 V., ch. 44, sec. 2. ) 

9<> All vessels boats, canoes, rafts, vehicles of any description, nets, fishing 
gear' materials, implements, or appliances used in violation of this act or any 
regulation under it, and any fish or other marine animal taken, caught, killed, 
conveyed, bought, sold, or had in possession in violation of this act or any regu- 
lation under it, and all other fish, shellfish, or marine animals otherwise legally 
taken caught killed, conveyed, bought, sold, or had in possession, and of what- 
ever size and description, which are intermixed therewith, shall be confiscated 
to His Maiestv and may be seized and confiscated on view by any fishery officer, 
or taken and removed by any person for delivery to any fishery officer or justice 
of the peace. (61 V., ch. 39, sec. 4.) " . . 

93 Should any net, seines, or other fishing apparatus be set or used in viola- 
tion of this act or any regulation thereunder for more than one day, then each 
dav during which such seines, nets, or other fishing apparatus shall remain so 
set or used shall constitute a separate offense, and may be punished accord- 
ingly • and should any other violation of this act, or of any regulation there- 
under continue for more than one day, then each day during which such viola- 
tion continues shall constitute a separate offense, and may be punished as such. 

(5 Q4° Except 1 as herein otherwise provided, everyone who violates any provision 
of this act or of the regulations under it shall be liable to a penalty not exceed- 
ing $100 and costs, and in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not 
exceeding three" months, and any fishery officer or justice of the peace may 
grant a warrant of distress for the amount of such penalty and costs. (61 V., 

Ch q| 9 When not otherwise specified, every proprietor, owner, agent, tenant, 
occupier partner/or person actually in charge, either as occupant or servant, 
shall be deemed to be jointly and severally liable for any penalties or moneys 
recoverable Minder any of the provisions of this act, or of any regulation made 
under it. (It. S., ch. 95, sec. 19.) 

FORMS OF PROCEDURE. 

100 No proceeding or conviction under this act or under any regulation made 
under it shall be set aside or quashed for irregularity or defect in form, and no 
warrant of arrest or commitment shall be held void by reason of any defect 
Therein if it is therein alleged that the defendant has been eonvicte I and here 
is a good and valid conviction to sustain the same. (R. S., ch. 9o, sec. 19.) 

APPLICATION OF FINES AND FORFEITURES. 

10? His Majesty's share of each penalty and all proceeds derived from the 
sail ? of SnfisS Particles under this act shall be paid to the minister of finance 
aroughTie SC department of marine and fisheries and be applied oward the 
expenses incurred for the protection of the fisheries.. (R. S., ch. 95, sec. is.) 

(Appendix C, part 2.) 

[Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Vol. I, p. 741.] 

Chapter 46 —An Act to Encourage the Development of the Sea Fisheries 
and the Building of Fishing Vessels. 

short title. 

1. This act may be cited as the deep-sea fisheries act. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 165 



2. The governor in council may authorize the payment, out of the consoli- 
dated revenue fund of Canada, of an annual grant not exceeding $160,000, to aid 
in the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, and the encouragement of 
the building and fitting out of improved fishing vessels, and 'the improvement 
of the condition of the fishermen. (54-55 V., ch. 42, sec. 1.) 

INVESTIGATIONS. 

6. The minister of marine and fisheries, whenever he deems it expedient to 
cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the said 
grant or the payment thereof, may direct any fishery officer to inquire into and 
concerning such matter. 

(Appendix C, part 3.) 

[From the Canadian Fisherman, Apr., 1914, p. 104.] 

The New Fisheries Act. 

the changes brought about by the new fisheries act briefly considered. 

[By L. H. Martell, B. A., B. C. L., Barrister-at-Law.] 

The new act amends and consolidates chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes of 
Canada of 1906 and acts in amendment thereof. The consolidation makes the 
act more easily accessible, while the amendments bring into being many things 
absolutely necessary for the proper administration of the fisheries, one of 
Canada's greatest assets, and remove many absurdities and obsolete require- 
ments of the old acts. In general, the new act is a great improvement upon its 
predecessors and brings to pass long-felt wants, both of the departmental admin- 
istrators and the fishing industry generally. 

SHORT TITLE. 

The act is still known as the fisheries act, and repeals Revised Statutes of 
Canada. 1906, chapter 45 ; chapter 20 of the Statutes of 1910 ; chapter 9 of the 
Statutes of 1911 ; and chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1912. 

INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION. 

The " interpretation clause " has been made more explicit in its application 
by eacting that " fish " includes shellfish, crustaceans, and marine animals — that 
is to say, everything that swims in the deep, which, but for the said clause, the 
: act would not include, and as a consequence counsel for the defense of a vio- 
lator of the act is stopped from setting up one of his favorite contentions that 
the fish or thing taken or caught from the deep is not covered by the provisions 
of the act, a thing which he was prone to do, and very often did with success, 
under section 3 of chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1906. The 
interpretation clause there defines a " fishery " to mean and include " the area, 
locality, place, or station in or on which a pound, seine, net, weir, or other fish- 
ing appliance is used, set, placed, or located, and the area, tract, or stretch of 
water in or from which fish may be taken by the said pound, seine, net, weir, or 
other fishing appliance, and also the pound, seine, net, weir, or other fishing 
appliance used in connection therewith." There was no definition of the word 
" fishery " in the old acts. The result was that when any person violated any 
of the rights of a " fishery " it was necessary to adduce expert evidence as to 
what a " fishery " really was, and a " fishery " would vary according to the 
locality in which the action was brought. The definition eliminates the neces- 
sity for such evidence, and now if a person is cited before the courts for violat- 
ing some person's " fishery " within the meaning of the definition, and expert 
evidence and local conditions do not have to be taken into consideration. 

46232— pt 2—16 9 



166 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

THE WHALE FISHERY. 

The sections of the new act relating to whale fishing cover very much the same 
ground as the provisions of the old act. However, the phraseology of the sec- 
tions has been improved and made more intelligible, the distance that must 
exist between factories for the converting of whales into commercial products 
has been increased from 50 to 100 miles, the clause relating to the equipment 
of a factory has been changed, so as to relieve the factory owner of unnecessary 
restrictions and the other clauses in the premises generally amended so as to 
encourage rather than retard industry. 

POSSESSION OF FISH. 

The law made and provided by the new act in the matter of the possession 
of fish is of far-reaching importance. Section 44 of chapter 45 of the Revised 
Statutes of 1906 read as follows : " No one shall, without lawful excuse, the 
proof whereof shall lie on him, buy,. sell, or possess any fish, or portion of any 
fish named in this act, caught or killed at a time or in a manner prohibited by 
law." Under that section it was necessary for the prosecutor or complainant 
to establish as a preliminary fact that the fish had in possession were caught 
at a time or in a manner prohibited by law. Possession in itself was not an 
offense. In many cases there was no doubt in the mind of the prosecutor or 
complainant that the fish were caught during a close season or in a manner 
prohibied by law, but he often could not establish this preliminary fact, so 
as to shift to the defendant the burden of showing lawful excuse. For many 
years the department held that under section 44 of the old act " possession " 
was in itself an offense, but on a case coming to the attention of the writer 
while an official of the department, he contended that it was not, and on a 
reference to the Department of Justice his contention was upheld. Hence, the 
amendment or new section. Under the new section " possession " in itself 
establishes a " prima facie " case against the defendant and the burden at once 
shifts to him to show lawful excuse for the possession. The result of this new 
section or amendment will be to prevent much illegal fishing. 

CONSTRUCTION OF FISHWAYS. 

The sections relating to fi^hways have been amended and improved by per- 
mitting the minister to authorize and require the construction of digging of 
canals around dams or obstructions where such would be more efficient than 
ordinary fishways through said dams or obstructions. The minister is also 
authorized and empowered to cause to be destroyed any dams or other obstruc- 
tions to the passage of fish without being liable to an action for damages, and 
in cases where the owner is known to recover the expenses of such destruction 
or removal from him. 

REGULATIONS. 

The effect of the new act as regards the power of the governor in council to 
make regulations relating to the time and manner of fishing, and the export 
of fish will not bring into existence anything detrimental to the industry. 
Regulations in this connection were made in the past by the governor in 
council; but as Parliament had not delegated such authority to the governor 
in council, the regulations so made were ultra vires. The new clauses permit 
of such regulations being legally made in the future. 

POWERS OF FISHERY OFFICERS. 

The powers of fishery officers have been increased under the new act by 
giving them authority to search, break open, and search any house, vessel, or 
place where they have reason to believe any fish taken in violation of the law 
is concealed. A fishery officer, guardian, or a peace officer is given authority 
to arrest without a warrant a person whom he, on reasonable and probable 
grounds, believe to have committed an offense against the fisheries law, or 
whom 'he finds committing or preparing to commit an offense against said 
law. It is also made an offense for anyone to obstruct any fishery officer or 
guardian in the discharge of his duty. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 167 



PENALTIES. 



The new act provides a minimum penalty as well as a maximum penalty 
in most cases. This was rendered necessary owing to the fact that when the 
magistrate trying a case had no minimum fixed by law he often allowed the 
convicted defendant to escape with a fine not in any way commensurate with 
the offense committed. 



(Appendix C, Part 4.) 
[Canadian Fisherman, Jan., 3914, p. 12.] 

EXTRACT FROM ADDRESS OF PROF. E. E. PRINCE AT THE INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES 

CONGRESS, ROME, 1913. 

Within the last 10 years whale hunting and the utilization of whale products 
has been pursued in Canada with most profitable results. On the Atlantic 
coast and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence whaling stations have been established 
and on the Pacific coast four large factories have been operated and received 
large numbers of whales, single stations receiving as many as 30 or 40 whales 
per week, or 400 to 500 in the course of the year. Very large finner whales 
(Balcenoptera) and humpbacks ( Megaptera ) have been taken, as well as 
smaller whales, and a number of sperm whales (Physeter) have also been 
captured by the steam whaling vessels in connection with the factories. Eleven 
sperm whales were taken at one station (Kuyoquot) in 1911. From these 
whales oil, guano, or ground-up whale meat and bones and other products have 
been yielded, and have resulted in very large profits to the whaling companies, 
in some years the total value exceeding a half million dollars for the season. 
The Arctic whaling in the distant northern seas of Canada, though still carried 
on, is almost a depleted industry. 

There is little doubt that the excessive destruction of whales in connection 
with these factories, especially of mother whales with calves, must result in a 
decline in this industry. A fishery commission has recommended that " sanc- 
tuaries," where the mother whales will be free from molestation, ought to be 
established by law, at intervals along the coast on the Atlantic and Pacific 
shores, but this has not yet been done. 



X 



^li^SZKI.^. FISHEEIES 
HEARINGS 

BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE ON THE 
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

First Session 

on 

H. R. 9528 

A BILL FOR THE PROTECTION, REGULATION, AND CON- 
SERVATION OF THfe FISHERIES OF ALASKA 



PART 3 



JUNE 3, 1916 



'f 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFER'li 

1016 



COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES. 

House or Representatives. 



JOSHUA W 
RUFUS HARDY, Texas. 
MICHAEL E. BURKE, Wisconsin. 
EDWARD W. SAUNDERS, Virginia. 
PETER J. DOOLING, New York. 
HENRY BRUCKNER. New York. 
LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. 
JAMES P. BYRNES, South Carolina. 
JESSE D. PRICE, Maryland. 
CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. 



ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. 

OSCAR L. GRAY, Alabama. 
DAVID H. KINCHELOE, Kentucky. 
WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. 
ASHER C. HINDS, Maine. 
CHARLES F. CURRY, California. 
GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania. 
WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, Illinois. 
GEORGE A. LOUD, Michigan. 
LINDLEY H. HADLEY, Washington. 
FREDERICK W. ROWE, New York. 
C. Bat, Clerk. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House or Representatives, 

Saturday, June 3, 1916. 

The committee met at 10.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joshua \Y. Alexan- 
der (chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bower, will you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF MR. WARD T. BOWER, AGENT IN CHARGE OF 
ALASKA FISHERIES, BUREAU OF FISHERIES— Continued. 

Mr. Bower. Mr. Chairman, day before yesterday I practically con- 
cluded my statement. Since that time there have been one or two 
little matters that possibly it might be well to bring to your atten- 
tion. First, I have in mind a suggestion as to a modification of the 
wording of section 18 of the bill, which appears on page 19. I sug- 
gest striking out in line 15, after the word " or," the words " aquatic 
animals of every kind or species whatsoever," and in lieu thereof in- 
sert these words: "Any whale, walrus, sea lion, hair seal, or other 
marine animal, except fur seals and sea otters." 

Mr. Rowe. Then you would have to change line 13, 

Mr. Bower. The word " all " should also be taken out of line 13, 
so that it will just read " aquatic animals included." The purpose 
of the change is to avoid any possible conflict with existing law or 
treaty in respect to fur seals and sea otters which are the subjects of 
special legislation and of an international treaty. Also it will ob- 
viate the possibility of any objection, as was suggested by Mr. Wick- 
ersham at a previous hearing, to including animals not of marine 
character. That is, otherwise it might possibly be construed to in- 
clude beavers, muskrats, and some other animals within the Territory 
proper. 

Mr. Hardy. Do you want to leave in those words " not specifically 
provided for in this act " ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. I think they are proper with this insert. 
That part of the section will read in this way : 

That the catching, killing, or utilization of any fish of any kind or any whale, 
walrus, sea lion, hair seal, or other marine animal, except fur seals and sea 
otters, specifically provided for in this act shall be subject to the provisions of 
this act, but the Secretary of Commerce shall have power to authorize the 
catching, killing, or utilization of any such fish or animal under such regula- 
tion as he may prescribe. 

The phrase in line 19 " such fish or animal," therefore, so far as 
its applicability to animals goes, naturally refers only to the animals 
that we have specified. Perhaps in line 13 the word " marine " 
should be inserted after the word " all." 

169 



170 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Greene. Then, as I understand it, you put the whale fisheries 
under the guidance and direction of the Secretary of Commerce un- 
der such regulations as he may prescribe ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir ; so far as the regulation of the shore whale 
fishery in Alaska is concerned. I think it would have nothing what- 
ever to do with the regulation of whale fisheries on the high seas. 

Mr. Greene. What do you call the high seas ? Three miles out ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir ; outside of the 3-mile limit ; outside of the 
territorial limits — 3 miles from shore. 

Mr. Hardy. You strike out in line 13 the word " aquatic " ? 

Mr. Bower. No ; I strike out the word " all.' 5 

Mr. Hardy. You would not use the word " marine " instead of 
." aquatic," would you ? I believe it ought to read " marine." 

Mr. Bower. The word " marine " might very properly be inserted 
in line 13, before the word " aquatic." 

Mr. Boave. Why not leave out the word " aquatic " and let it 
read " marine animal" ? Then you have got it clear. 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir ; probably that would be the best way. 

Mr. Hardy. I do not believe I would strike out the caption at all. 

Mr. Bower. Each section has a caption. I would also like to sug- 
gest a further addition to the section something like this : " So much 
of the act approved May 11, 1908 (35 Stat. L., 102), for the pro- 
tection of game in Alaska, and for other purposes, as relates to 
walrus and sea lions, is hereby repealed," for the purpose of repeal- 
ing that part of the Alaska game laws. 

Mr. Wickersham. What will be the effect of that language? 

Mr. Bower. That will mean that the control of those animals will 
be transferred to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of 
Agriculture now has jurisdiction over them, although the adminis- 
trative features of the game law are handled by the governor of 
Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. Would that leave any penahVy at all for 
wantonly killing them? 

Mr. Bower. The penalties in this act would apply. 

The Chairman. It might be well to provide that they are ex- 
cluded from that act and included within the jurisdiction of this act. 

Mr. Bower. That is the object we are endeavoring to accomplish. 

The Chairman. I doubt if you are accomplishing it in that way. 
Unless you repeal that act, which relates to them, and then specific- 
ally include them in this act, the penalties would not apply. 

Mr. Hardy. I think when you repeal the other act it leaves them 
subject to the jurisdiction and penalties in this act. 

The Chairman. Well, we want to be sure. We do include them 
now, especially in this act. 

Mr. Hardy. Walrus and sea lions are included especially in this 
act as it now stands. 

Mr. Bower. We have included them particularly to make sure of 
it. We thought it might be advisable to include a repealing clause, 
so far as they are concerned in the act approved May 11, 1908. 

It has occurred to me also, Mr. Chairman, that a change might be 
made in section 13, on page 15. It is very brief. In lines 2 and 3, 
at the top of page 15, strike out the words " except for domestic 
consumption." 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 171 

Mr. Hadley. We indicated that for striking out the other day. 

The Chairman. It has been so indicated. 

Mr. Bower. All right, sir. 

Mr. Curry. Why do you want that stricken out? 

Mr. Bower. It has been suggested that if it remains it will leave a 
great loophole in the way of killing salmon improperly under the 
guise of taking them for domestic use. It is very difficult to draw 
the line between commercial use and domestic use. 

Mr. Curry. But do not the people in the interior of Alaska get 
salmon by spearing them, and do not the Indians and the Eskimos 
spear them \ 

The Chairman. Mr. Curry, the testimony the other day disclosed 
this condition, that the} 7 fish for sport and mutilate so many fish. 
The tourists go there and spear them for sport. Now, the salmon 
come up here in great schools and a man will thrust one of these 
spears down among the fish and mutilate and kill them and, so far as 
catching them for domestic use is concerned, the} 7 can catch them 
with a seine ; they can go in those streams and catch them with their 
hands. It is a wicked, wasteful way of catching fish which should be 
prohibited just as we prohibit the use of that method of catching fish 
in our States. 

Mr. Curry. Oh, there is a whole lot more reason for prohibiting 
it in our States than there would be in Alaska, which is a great Ter- 
ritory thinly inhabited. I do not think that they wound many fish 
with spears ; I do not think those fish get away. 

The Chairman. Well, the testimony indicates that. 

Mr. Curry. Oh, if it was for commercial purposes, it would be a 
whole lot different. 

The Chairman. Well, they do, if you will look at the report of Dr. 
Jones and the illustrations of the way in which the fish are mutilated. 
They have been caught for commercial purposes. 

Mr. Curry. Well, of course, you can stop it for commercial pur- 
poses, but this is for domestic consumption. 

The Chairman. Well, where are you going to draw the line? I 
would like to hear from Dr. Jones on that. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman it strikes me that an arbitrary provi- 
sion such as this amendment would be a very great injustice to 
some of the natives in Alaska. You take the Chilkoot and Chilkat 
Indians. It is a time-honored custom for them to carry on, as I 
indicated in my report, this practice of gaffing or spearing sockeye 
or other salmon on their way up the Chilkoot and Chilkat Rivers. 
That is practically the only way that they can take them. These 
poor people are practically forbidden to sell them to the canneries, 
and my observation is that they do not take any more than they 
actually need to provide themselves with food in the winter. I 
doubt very much if these people have the means to buy nets or other 
paraphernalia in order to supply themselves with the necessary food 
for the winter time. 

The Chairman. Well, do they not sell them to the canneries? 

Mr. Jones. No. sir; they do not. It is practically against the law. 
The canneries will not buy them. 

Mr. Bower. I am sorry to say I must differ with Mr. Jones. He 
may be of the impression that there is a law prohibiting the sale of 



172 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

these fish to the canneries, but I know that they have been selling- 
them right along; that they sold them to the canneries until the 
canneries, by a sort of gentleman's agreement, decided not to buy 
them. My objection to the practice of the Chilkoot Indians is be- 
cause I understand there is a large number of fish that are muti- 
lated and lost. 

Mr. Jones. Where do you refer to, Mr. Bower ? 

Mr. Bower. I refer to the canneries in that region — the Alaska 

Pacific Fisheries Co. 

Mr. Jones (interposing). Well, I only speak from personal ob- 
servation and the report of the superintendents that they would 
not and could not buy speared salmon. Whether it be a moral law 
and not absolutely a legal question, the fact remains that these fish are 
are not canned, and I think it would be a great injustice to prevent 
these Indians from taking the fish as has been their custom for 
centuries. There are just as many fish lost, in proportion to the 
few that might get away by using the spear or gaff as by using 
other methods. I am absolutely against curtailing the rights of the 
natives of Alaska to take salmon in the manner indicated. 

Mr. Bower. My sympathies constantly go out to the native of 
Alaska. We have made numerous exceptions in his favor in this 
bill. 

Mr. Hardy. I understand you to say that tourists are given to 
spearing them for sport ? 

Mr.BowER. Yes, sir ; that is a common practice. 
Mr. Hardy. Does that come under the head of domestic consump- 
tion if the}^ utilize them and take them home ? 

Mr. Bower. It has been the practice, I believe, for them to take 
home part of the fish secured in that way and make use of them. 

Mr. Curry. If there were 10,000 tourists who went to Alaska every 
year and each tourist killed 100 fish with a spear, what effect would 
that have on the salmon? 

The Chairman. Well, why have that waste? 
Mr. Curry. I do not think it is a waste. 

The Chairman. What? For tourists to kill thousands of salmon 
wantonly for sport? 

Mr. Curry. I do not see why they should not come up there and 
fish for sport any more than they should come out in my State and 
fish for sport. It takes considerable skill to know how to spear a 
salmon. 

Mr. Jones. The point might be emphasized in this way : Everybody 
taking part in Alaska fishing, fish with the paraphernalia that is 
most adapted to surrounding conditions. On the Copper River, 
above the bridge at Chilcls Glacier, in that very rapid stream, they 
use a dip net, simply because there is no other method practicable 
for taking those fish at that point. The salmon leave the main chan- 
nel because the water is very swift, and seek the shores, and they are 
dipped out by hand net and used largely for commercial purposes. 
That does not mutilate them, of course. But it emphasizes my point 
that these two tribes of Indians, and possibly other natives, who 
catch the fish the way they do because it is the only method they 
understand and the only means at hand for taking them. I certainly 
do not think that there are very serious inroads made on the supply 
of salmon by these two tribes of Indians or any other tribes. So far 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 173 

as the tourists are concerned, I did not see or hear of any example 
of them using the spear or gaff. The salmon, as I show by the illus- 
trations in my report, are far more mutilated by the fish pew. 

Mr. Hardy. What is the fish pew? 

Mr. Jones. It is a one-prone fork, sometimes with two prongs, that 
is used in unloading salmon from barges or boats. I do not think the 
fish pew does the slightest harm to the fish that are to be canned, 
but I do think it does a material harm to the fish that are going to 
be frozen and sent to the markets. I think the fish pew, as I have 
shown by an illustration of three salmon that I picked up out of a 
good many similarly scarred, and you will agree with* me that they 
are more or less mutilated, does a great deal more harm than the 
insignificant amount of gaffing and spearing. 

The Chairman. What is the difference between a fish pew and a 
spear? 

Mr. Jones. A spear or gaff is more of a hook. They are used in 
the water similar to a hoe in the garden, and as these fish go up the 
stream they are rather hooked than speared or gaffed. The fish pew 
is a prong (with handle), about 4 inches long and very slightly 
curved near the point. 

The Chairman. I thought they were driven down in that way. 

Mr. Jones. No, sir; I did not see any such condition. There may 
have been some in the Yukon region. I am referring especially to 
the spearing or gaffing in the Chilkoot and Chilkat Kivers. 

Mr. Hardy. How would it do to amend that section of the bill so 
that it would -read "except by residents of Alaska for domestic con- 
sumption " ? 

Mr. Bower. That seems good, though just now I do not see any 
very serious objection to the language as it stands at present in the 
bilk 

Mr. Hadley. You say there is no inhibition under existing law 
against selling speared or gaffed fish to the canneries? 

Mr. Bower. No, sir; there is no inhibition. 

Mr. Hadley. You have framed a bill here that will make it abso- 
lutely unlawful to sell such fish? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. Do you not think that if this bill were passed as it 
is framed, with that inhibition included in it, it would curtail practi- 
cally all the waste and wanton destruction of fish in line with this 
provision ? 

Mr. Bower. I think it will probably accomplish that purpose. It 
will perhaps discourage gaffing by the Chilkoot Indians and make 
them undertake other methods of fishing for commercial use. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, really, I do not think the destruction is very 
great. 

Mr. Bower. It is supposed that a great many fish escape after 
they are hooked. That was the impression I got. This thought is 
not original with me. It came from the observation of others. 
Mr. Robert Forbes, the general manager of the Pacific American 
Fisheries Co., was the first man who suggested this matter to me. 
I think it was about four years ago. 

Mr. Hadley. It seems to me that this first provision will enable 
you to accomplish what is in view here. 



174 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



Mr. Bower. In view of the later discussion of this matter, I 
believe it will be accomplished. I do not believe now it will be 
necessary to strike out that provision. 

Mr. Curry. The white men up there go out and spear salmon for 
pleasure and for domestic use, but this provision applies entirely to 
Indians, who have always used this method of catching fish. I do 
not see why they should not be allowed to spear them and to sell 
them where the people want them. Farther north, where there are 
no canneries at all, the Indians catch fish in this manner and with 
nets and seines. They dry them and sell them and send them into 
the interior. They sell them or trade them to the other Indians and 
get deer meat and other things in exchange. Of course, if you want 
to starve the Indians, all right, but I think that we ought to protect 
the Indians. I think it is a pretty severe law as it is, because it 
prohibits them from selling the fish after they are speared. 

Mr. Hadley. But on the question of domestic consumption it 
would be all right. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we are not passing on anything now. 
We are simply trying to get the views of the department. 

Mr. Bower. Mr. Chairman, if the omission of those words will 
operate as a severe hardship upon the Indians, I desire to withdraw 
absolutely my suggestion that those words be stricken out. 

The Chairman. Pass on to something else. 

Mr. Bower. That is all I have to offer this morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wickersham. I want to ask the gentleman just a question or 
two. 

Mr. Bower. I had a table prepared which I want to insert in the 
record. It was called for the other day by Mr. Wickersham and 
other members of the committee. It shows the pound-net locations 
in Alaska on file with the Bureau of Fisheries, June 1, 1916. 

Mr. Wickersham. I would like to have that in the record. 

The Chairman. It will be incorporated in the record. 

(The table referred to is as follows:) 

Plats of pound-net locations in Alaska on file with the Bureau of Fisheries 

June 1, 1916. 



Name of company. 



Date 
filed. 



Number. 



Alaska-Portland Packers' Association. 

Fidalgo Island Packing Co 

Libby, McNeill & Libby 



Columbia River Packers' Association. 
.Astoria & Puget Sound Canning Co. .. 

F. C Barnes Co 

P. E. Harris & Co 

Columbia River Packers' Association. 

George Inlet Packing Co 

Bering Sea Packing Co 

Deep Sea Salmon Co 

Stmny Point Packing Co 

Fidalgo Island Packing Co 

Thlinket Packing Co 

Pidalgo Island Packing Co 

Do 

Do 

Astoria & Puget Sound Canning Co . . 



1914. 

Jan. 14 

Dec. 9 

Dec. 12 

1916. 

Jan. 24 

Jan. 21 

Jau. 22 

Jan. 29 

Feb. 2 

Feb. 7 

Feb. 17 

Feb. 11 

Feb. 28 

Mar. 1 

Mar. 2 

Mar. S 

Mar. 9 

May 22 

May 27 



Total . 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 175 

The Chairman. In that connection I desire to offer a letter from 
the Secretary of Commerce under date of June 2\ 1916, estimating the 
revenue that would accrue to the Territory of Alaska under the bill 
as it now reads as based upon the fishing operations of 11)14. 

(The letter referred to is as follows:) 

Department of Commerce, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, June 2, Hilij. 
My Dear Judge Alexander: This department, through the Bureau Of Fish- 
eries, estimates the revenue that would accrue in Alaska hy the operation pf 
H. R. 9528 as follows, based upon the fishery operations of 1014. Later records 
are not complete: 

License fees on shore plants $735 

License fees on apparatus 30. 573 

Tax on raw products 44,936 

Tax on canned products 145. 70S 

Tax on other prepared products 13. ."32 

Total 23o,544 

Of this amount the share which would normally accrue to the Territory of 
Alaska under the hill as it now reads would he .$117,772 per annum. 

The amounts which the United States Treasury has received from fisheries 
taxes in Alaska paid into the so-called "Alaska fund " have been as follows for 
the five calendar years ending December 31, 1014 : 

1010 $134,940 

1911_ SS, 300 

1912 116.508 

1913 127.709 

1914 146,296 

Total 613. 843 

Average 122, 769 

In order to make clear beyond question the attitude of the department in the 
matter we are very glad to suggest that a proviso be inserted in the measure to 
the effect that the amount which shall accrue to the Territory of Alaska under 
the bill shall not be less than $166,000. This amount is stated because in the 
year 1015 the Treasury received for the "Alaska fund " a total of $166,253. 
This amount, being larger than the actual tax upon the product, apparently 
included some back taxes. We should be glad, however, to have it made the 
minimum basis for the Territory of Alaska to receive under the proposed new 
legislation. 

Yours, very truly, William C. Redfield, 

Secretary. 
Hon. J. W. Alexander, 

Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, "Washington. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Bower, in relation to the location of fish- 
trap sites, I have been unable to get quite a clear idea of how it is 
done and of the character of these maps which you say are filed 
in the department. I wish 3 r ou would take a piece of paper and draw 
on it, if you will, so that we can all see it, an ideal trap site as it may 
be located under the sections of this bill. 

Mr. Bower. All right, sir. I can do it easily, if 3^011 so desire. 
Xow, perhaps, I can make the matter clear to the committee by 
means of a rough sketch which will give an idea of what we are en- 
deavoring to accomplish. \Te will suppose that this line [indicat- 
ing] represents one pound net, and this line represents another 
pound net. Under this bill the lateral distance must be an interval 
of 2,400 feet. Under the existing law 



176 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Hadley (interposing). You mean not less than 2,400 feet. 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. It may be more ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes ; it may be very much more. 

Mr. Hadley. Excuse me, but I just wanted to get that clear. 

Mr. Bower. Because of the rugged configuration of the country 
it is often difficult or impossible to construct pound nets at regular 
distance intervals along the shore. Under the present law the dis- 
tance interval is only 1,800 feet. Now, these pound nets must be a 
specified distance away from the mouth of any stream, namely, 
1,500 feet. 

The Chairman. A half mile, is it not? 

Mr. Bower. It is 500 yards or 1,500 feet away from the mouth 
of any stream, irrespective of whether it is a red salmon stream 
or a pink salmon stream. Under the terms of the present law pound 
nets may be located right near the mouth of the stream if it is not 
a red salmon stream. The one word " red " in the existing law makes 
a great difference in the placing of fish traps or pound nets, as Ave 
call them now. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, as I read section 7, it says that " no lead 
of any pound net in the Territory of Alaska shall exceed 3,000 feet 
in length." Now, explain to the committee what a lead is. 

Mr. Bower. The lead is the offshore extent of the pound net out to 
the heart. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is a row of piles extending out from the 
shore ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir ; upon which netting is hung. The fish swim 
along and are stopped by the lead, which they follow into the heart 
of the pound net. 

Mr. Wickersham. I know what it is ; but I want to get the area of 
one of these locations marked on a map, if I can. Now, the lead may 
be 3,000 feet from shore? 

Br. Bower. Yes, sir ; that is specified in the bill. 

Mr. Wickersham. "And there shall be an end passageway of at 
least 600 feet." What does that mean? 

Mr. Bower. That means that if a trap is run out from the opposite 
shore there must be at least that distance interval for the free passage 
of the fish; but, in any event, no pound-net lead or other fixed ap- 
pliance may extend more than one-third of the distance across the 
stream. I can not think of a single instance in Alaska to-day where, 
in actual practice, the requirements of the endwise feature are appli- 
cable, for the reason that the waters are all so wide, but probably 
there are places where pound nets will be located where it will be 
necessary to apply this feature of the bill. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, it says : " and a lateral passageway of at 
least 2.100 feet between all pound nets." 

Mr. Bower. I endeavored to explain the meaning of that by the 
diagram which I just made. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then, in brief, each trap location will consist, 
or may consist, of an area of 2,100 feet in length up and down the 
coast and 3,000 feet out into the sea ? 

Mr. Bower. Well, the actual holdings of any owner of a pound net 
will not cover that area, but it will prevent the location of another 
pound net within the prescribed distance interval on either side. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 177 

Mr. Wickersham. Conceding this to be the shore [indicating], he 
will build his net out here and his trap at the outer end of it. No- 
body can get within 1,200 feet of him on either side. 

Mr. Bower. Nobody can get within 2,400 feet on either side. The 
purpose of it is to allow an area for the free passage of a sufficient 
number of salmon for spawning. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then it will be 2,400 feet if it takes the full 
area ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes ; where no other fish nets are operated. 

Mr. Hardy. That is the very lowest he is allowed to take laterally. 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir ; that is the very lowest. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, along that line, taking your diagram there, if a 
man was disposed to monopolize, he goes with a friend and puts one 
of those nets here [indicating] at point A, and then he goes over here 
to point B [indicating], and instead of 2,400 feet he goes 4,700 feet 
and nobody can get in between them, can they? 

Mr. Bower. There would be no opportunity for a pound net loca- 
tion between them. 

Mr. Hardy, Then, if they desire it they can nearly double that 
space for a pound net under the law? 

Mr. Bower. It would be a very proper thing. We would not 
object to it. ' 

Mr. Wickersham. You would favor it? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir; it all tends to prevent intensive fishing. 

Mr. Hardy. Then the bill might operate to prevent any other 
fishing operations closer than 2,400 feet apart? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir; it might. 

Mr. Hardy. If 2,400 feet is enough? 

Mr. Bower. It simply forces the other man to go farther afield. 

Mr. Hardy. In other words, it gives the man in possession 4,800 
feet if you want to make it that long? 

Mr. Bower. I would say in this connection that in a previous bill, 
one which was introduced by Mr. Carlin (H. R, 753, 64th Cong.) 
and which was prepared very largely by Dr. Jones, the distance 
interval was considerably greater. 

Mr. Hardy. I am just calling attention to what is the construc- 
tion and probably practical operation of this law. Instead of 2,400 
feet it may be double that. 

Mr. Bower. Even so, there is ample room for the extension of the 
industry. There will be plenty of space in which newcomers may 
locate fishing sites. 

Mr. Hardy. And yet you are framing this law in order to pre- 
vent overfishing? 

Mr. Bower. Yes; overfishing in any one spot. 

Mr. Hardy. But while you make it intentionally 2,400 feet, yet 
practically it is 4,800 feet. 

Mr. Bower. If we change it to read 4,800 feet in the bill, then, 
by the method which you describe, it would be double, or 9,600 feet. 
The purpose is to make it a minimum of 2,400 feet, as stated in 
the bill. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, I think it is, but practically it is 4,800 feet. 

The Chairman. What would be the effect of that provision upon 
the fish ? 

Mr. Wickersham. A monopoly. 



178 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. Would there be opportunity for the fish to get 
away ? 

Mr. Bower. I think so. 

Mr. Hardy. I understood that one reason was to prevent the fish 
from coming back and escaping to the spawning grounds. 

Mr. Curry. The nets ought to be kept far enough apart to allow 
the fish to get up the stream. 

The Chairman. That is the theory; and, as I understand Judge 
Hardy, if we do not fix a limit not less than 2,400 feet or not more 
than 2,400 feet, why, two parties in collusion may plant their nets, 
say, 4,700 feet apart, which would prevent somebody else from put- 
ting a trap between them, and in that way the}'' would control the 
ground and have a monopoly of the fish in that area. Now, if that 
is to be the only effect of it, it ought to be avoided. 

Mr. Bower. The real effect is to conserve the fish. That is what 
we are endeavoring to accomplish. 

Mr. Hadley. I was going to say that if the purpose of protection 
and preservation of the fish was not involved, there would be no 
necessity for a limitation on the location of traps at all. 

Mr. Bower. That is it exactly. The purpose of this legislation is 
to secure that protection. 

Mr. Hardy. I was only calling your attention to what a practical 
construction of it would amount to, without an}^ particular knowledge 
of it. 

Mr. Hadley. Is it the judgment of the department that the limita- 
tion that is placed in this bill is one that is desirable under existing 
conditions to effect such a preservation ? 

Mr. Bower. That is the way we look at it. That is our best judg- 
ment. 

Mr. Hardy. As I understand you, you would rather that it would 
be 4,800 feet apart, but jou do not want to provide that in the bill? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir; so far as allowing an ample escape of fish. 
I have nothing further to add just now, Mr. Chairman, unless other 
questions are to be taken up. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH WALSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman, my attention has been called to the 
provisions of section 18 of this bill by my colleague, Mr. Greene, a 
member of this committee, and as my district includes the city of 
New Bedford, which is the only city in New England, and I think 
one of the few cities on the Atlantic coast, which is at all interested 
in the whaling fisheries at this time, I have looked into the provisions 
of that section rather carefully, and I have noticed how this bill 
starts out with a provision for the protection of salmon fisheries and 
the food fish and shellfish. When it reaches section 18 it plunges 
in all over, so to speak, and takes in all sorts of fish and aquatic 
animals. 

Now, while there may be very few ships from New Bedford now 
engaged in the Arctic whaling industry, there are vessels engaged in 
that business now in which people of my district are part owners — 
fisheries in which some of my people are interested. I submit that 



ALASKA FISHEKIE? 179 

the provision in section is is entirely uncalled for. It uses the lan- 
guage "catching, killing, or utilization of any fish of any kind." 
That is very broad language. Whales may be taken beyond the 3- 
mile limit and brought into some place in Alaska for treatment, for 
cuiing. or for trying out the oil. as is sometimes, done at shore sta- 
tions; you put that under the direction of the Secretary of Com- 
merce, and if any particular process of whaling j s carried' on within 
this territory then the whaleman is subject to regulation by the De- 
partment of Commerce. He has got to take out a license, I assume, 
although it is not specifically provided for in this bill, as I read it. 
I submit that the whale fisheries ought not to be included in a 
measure such as this. The whaling industry is an industry that is 
usually carried on on the high seas, although it may be carried on 
within the 3-mile limit. I submit that a regulation 'by the Depart- 
ment of Commerce to require them to take out a license, to require 
them to follow all sorts of regulations that may be prescribed, is 
decidedly unfair. It is a branch of the fisheries that is declining 
steadily, not so much, perhaps, on account of the scarcity of those 
animals as the constant dropping in profit for their products, owing 
to other methods having been devised for securing oil and other 
products which are derived from that fishery. I think that the 
whaling fisheries ought not to be disturbed or interfered with; not 
in this form at least. If the bill is adopted in its present form it 
will not be but a few years before the department will come in and 
cite this as a precedent, and ask that you prescribe rules and regu- 
lations for the whaling fisheries that a-re carried on on the Atlantic 
coast on this side of the continent. There is a considerable industry 
on the Atlantic coast, and the vessels sail from New Bedford. They 
will say, "We regulate the whale fisheries up in Alaska, and we 
ought to regulate them here on this side of the continent."' 

My viewpoint is that section 18 of this bill ought to be eliminated. 
It is not intended to conserve the salmon or shetlfisheries of Alaska. 
As to sea lions and walrus, as I understand it, there has been no 
abuse shown and there is no particular reason for prescribing reg- 
ulations for the taking of those aquatic animals. Now, there is a 
law with reference to seals and sea otters, and that law can be en- 
forced, but to say that a person going out on a venture to take 
whales, on a voyage that may last several months or a year, that he 
has got to take out a license", and that if he should happen to land 
at an Alaskan port he has got to look up these regulations and see 
what he can do and what he can not do before he utilizes the product 
of his voyage, is utterly uncalled for. There is no need for it. This 
bill ought to be confined to the purposes laid down in its title; that 
is, the conservation of the fisheries of Alaska. This section 18 
should conform to the preceding sections relating to salmon fisheries 
and shellfisheries. ^ You should not broaden the scope of it and go 
into the realm of fisheries on the high seas simply because it is pos- 
sible that they may at some time in their operations come within the 
waters of that Territory. So I feel that I am representing the 
wishes of people who are interested in the whaling business in ob- 
jecting to the inclusion of section 18 in this bill. That is all I have 
to state. 

Mr. Greexe. Have you examined section 2 of the bill? 



180 ALASKA FISHEEIES. 

Mr. Walsh. I have. 

Mr. Greene. That provides for a license. 

Mr. Walsh. I see it does. 

Mr. Hardy. Mr. Walsh, as a member of this committee not in- 
terested or connected with any shore line or fishing industry, I would 
like to ask you if there is any reason why the whale fishery should 
not be regulated just as well as any other fishery, if the final preserva- 
tion of the industry is to be at all sought to be accomplished. 

Mr. Walsh. Well, Mr. Hardy, with reference to that I would say 
that if the product of that fishery, namely the whales, were within 
the jurisdiction of the United States during the entire time that 
they were being taken; that is, if they were all within the 3-mile 
limit from the shore, that might be so. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, right there. Is not that precisely the same argu- 
ment that the persons interested in the absolute destruction of the 
fur-seal industry made when they were seeking to be permitted to 
catch and kill and destroy them because they were outside of the 
3-mile limit? When they were earnestly anxious to get the present 
profit out of that pursuit regardless of the future result to the fur- 
seal industry, did they not fight every effort which was made to 
restrain their rights and privileges on the high seas just as you are 
doing as to the whales? Is it not a further fact that the whale in- 
dustry, by reason of nothing having been done, is being practically 
swept out of existence and is it not becoming one of the lost arts 
or lost industries, and have you not got to do something to prevent 
this whale industry from being speedily wound up by men who are 
interested solely in the present profits of it ? 

Mr. Walsh. That is true as to the fur seals. That argument was 
made. But there is no parallel in the two cases. Now, it is not so 
much a question of the whales getting fewer in quantity, but the 
business is declining. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, if it is not so much, is it not largely on that 
account ? 

Mr. Walsh. Well, it may be. Sometimes a man will go out in 
the beginning of the season and he will not catch any whales, and 
another time he will go out and inside of less than month he will 
come back with a full cargo. It is not because the whales are few, 
but when you come to regulate an industry that is carried on on 
the high seas, the broad ocean, you are undertaking a problem that 
you can not handle successfully. I have been an employee of the 
Bureau of Fisheries 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). Now, what is going to be the harm of 
this law? 

Mr. Walsh. It is going to impose restrictions on people which 
will be a hardship. 

Mr. Hardy. But is it not the only way in which you can protect 
the whale industry? 

Mr. Walsh. No, sir; it is not. Now, as I say, I have been an 
employee of the Bureau of Fisheries for several years, and I have 
seen the disposition of the department to seek to regulate the sea 
and shore fisheries of this country. 

Mr. Hardy. With what motive? 

Mr. Walsh. They give the motive as the preservation of the 
fisheries. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 181 

Mr. Hardy. The preservation of the industry, too, is it not? 

Mr. Walsh. Not so much the preservation of the industry as 
the preservation of the fisheries, because it lias stifled industry and 
made the industry less. 

Mr. Hardy. Do you believe that the department thinks that in the 
regulation of the fisheries thev are injuring the production of the 
Bsh 1 

Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir; it does. The}' will put a closed season on 
fish and will not allow anybody to take them. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, Mr. Walsh, could they, as public servants, have 
any other interest but the public good in doing that? 

Mr. Walsh.. Well, I say that is the interest that they say they 
seek to serve, but it has not worked out. 

Mr. Hardy. You do not question their motives, do you? You 
think that they are mistaken in their policy? 

Mr. Walsh. Oh, no; I do not mean to question their motives at all. 

Mr. Hardy. But you say, " they say." 

Mr. Walsh. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy. Now 7 , do you not think that they really have that 
motive ? 

Mr. Walsh. Well, I will admit that; but I will say this, that the 
gentlemen who advocate that motive have in many instances to my 
knowledge no practical knowledge of the industry which they seek 
to conserve. They look at it merely from the scientific standpoint. 

Mr. Hardy. But, on the other hand, they have no selfish interests? 

Mr. Walsh. Oh, no ; they have no selfish interests. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, then, your people, who seek to get a present profit 
out of it, have a very great selfish interest in opposing restrictions 
that will preserve the industry ? 

Mr. Walsh. No, sir ; 1 do not say that. 

Mr. Hardy. Do 3 t ou not think that a man who would go out and 
•catch a lot of fur seals — well, I will not say fur seals — I would say 
a man who goes out and engages in this industry without restrictions 
and sweeps the sea of the possible source of natural supply has a 
personal interest? 

Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. That he has an interest in not being restrained? 

Mr. Walsh. That is true. 

Mr. Hardy. Are not your people in that industry in the same 
situation ? 

Mr. Greene. How about the people who are employed? They are 
getting pretty good salaries, better than the} r ever got anywhere else. 
They never got better salaries in their lives. 

Mr. Hardy. I am not talking about that. 

Mr. Greene. Well. I am. 

Mr. Hardy. But if your people want to run down the source of 
supply, they are interested. 

Mr. Walsh. Well, of course they are interested. If they were not 
interested, they would not be here opposing it. If you could make 
a practical restriction, it would be satisfactory. They would not 
oppose any practical restriction. 

The Chairman. What would you call a practical restriction? 

Mr. Walsh. It would not be one that is confined simply to this coun- 
*try. If a whale man goes on the high seas, and if there is some agree- 



182 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

ment that is going to apply to Avhale men from other countries as 
well as ours, that would be' a practical restriction. But if 3^011 are 
going to simply say to the whale men who sail from the United States 
ports, " You are subject to these restrictions," whereas a man who 
might sail from the other side of the Alaskan Straits, or from Japan, 
or from some other country, can come up there and catch whales 
without restriction, it is unfair. I submit that under the provisions 
of this bill you are not conserving the fisheries of Alaska, because 
these whales are not caught in Alaskan waters. They may be caught 
anywhere on the broad ocean, and they may, on their way north, 
stop into an Alaskan port, and while in there they may do something 
in connection with the whaling business. Are you going to say, 
" You have got to do that in a certain way ; you have got to pay so 
much to do it ? " I submit that is utterly unfair. 

Mr. Curry. Mr. Walsh, the saving of the fur seals of Alaska from 
extinction occupied the attention of Congress for a good many 
years? 

Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. At last the only practical method of saving the fur 
seals that was thought out was an international agreement between 
Great Britain, Japan, the United States, and Eussia. 

Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cltrry. Then, under that agreement the United States had 
to take the fur-seal business over itself as a monopoly of the United 
States. Now, I believe in saving the whales, but I do not believe we 
can do it without an international agreement. I think that we ought 
to, through this committee, start the machinery for an international 
agreement between Norway, Great Britain, Japan, the United States, 
and Eussia, to take care of the whales in every way in which it can 
be done. That is the best way to get at this proposition — to enter 
into an international agreement between those countries in the same 
way as was done in the case of the fur seals. In the meantime I 
have not made up my mind on this section of the bill. We have a 
good many people out in California who are interested in the whale 
fisheries in Alaska. Last year there were not any whale ships that 
went out, but this year there have been a number of them. The 
whales were all taken on the high seas outside of the jurisdiction 
of the United States. Whether or not we should discourage our own 
people from engaging in that business while the people of Japan, 
Eussia, Great Britain, and Norway can go up there and take the 
whales, all the whales they want, I do not know. 

The Chairman. It would not apply to your people if they are not 
taken into a port of Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. Oh, they have to be taken into a port unless a whale 
is destroyed on the high seas. 

Mr. Walsh. Well, they may not have to take the whale into port, 
but they have to go in there to take on coal and supplies. Some of 
the whalers are gone on voyages as long as two years. 

The Chairman. Well, we will take up the bill when we get through 
the hearings and pass on the sections. 

Mr. Wickersham. I want to say that some time ago I introduced a 
bill in the House for the purpose of setting on foot a scheme to 
secure an international agreement between the United States and 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 1 J* 3 

Canada, Russia, and Japan, to cover the whale.- and these other 
marine animals and t<> preserve and protect them from extinction. 
I have listened to Judge Hardy and Mr. Walsh and I agree with 
both of them. They seem diametrically opposed to each other, but 
as a matter of fact there is a most woeful waste of these marine 
animals in Alaskan waters. People go out there on the ice inside 
of the 3-mile limit and shoot immense walruses just to see them 
sink. Thousands of them are slaughtered wantonly and recklessly 
by people in that manner, and all classes of these big animals are 
being wasted in a most shameful manner. But this bill would drive 
the trade over to the Russian side. You can not control the situation 
from this side alone, because it is only 45 miles across to Siberia, 
and they have whaling stations over there. The trade would simply 
be driven over to the other side. Now, not only that, but the na- 
tives up there depend on these animals for food, and when they are 
killed off you will have to make provision to feed the Eskimos. 
This is a very important subject and it ought to be handled in the 
right way, and not as provided in this bill. I think the Bureau of 
Fisheries will agree with that. 

Mr. Hadley. Where is your bill. Mr. Wickersham? Is it before 
this committee? 

Mr. Wickersham. I think it went before the Committee on For- 
eign Affairs. 

Mr. Hadley. It was introduced in this Congress? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; it is in this Congress. 

Mr. Bower. Mr. Chairman, this part of the bill aims only to 
cover the shore industry in Alaska. It has nothing to do with the 
high-sea whale fishery. The industry in the North Pacific is divided 
into two distinct classes. I do not believe, if the bill were to pass as 
it now stands, that it would interfere in any degree with the fur- 
nishing of supplies to those few ships that engage in the offshore 
industry. Twenty-one whales were taken by the American North 
Pacific high-sea whale fishery in 1914. whereas 48 l 2 were taken by the 
shore industry. Now, there is a distinct difference in the two lines 
of industry in that the offshore Avhalers lose the entire carcass; 
they only use the blubber and the whalebone, whereas the shore 
whaling stations use every part of the animal for fertilizers, oils, 
and other products. 

The Chairman. Where are those whales caught? 

Mr. Bower. They are caught in part outside of the 3-mile limit 
and in part inside of the 3-mile limit. 

Mr. Curry. There is not one in a hundred caught inside the 3- 
mile limit. 

Mr. Bower. I beg your pardon. There is a whaling station at 
Port Armstrong which has taken whales inside the 3-mile limit. 

Mr. Walsh. I will confirm that, because I have seen them do it. 
They are big ones. 

Mr. Bower. I know it has been done. 

The Chairman. What effect will that have on whales taken outside 
of the 3-mile limit? 

Mr. Bower. It would enable us to get a license tax upon the 
product which they cure or prepare in Alaska. 

46232— pt 3—16 2 



184 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Hardy. They could not be prohibited from going outside of 
the 3-mile limit and killing as many whales as they wanted to and 
bringing them in? 

Mr. Bower. No, sir. As I suggested the other day, House concur- 
rent resolution No. 18, introduced by Mr. Wickersham, contains the 
meat of a very important need in regard to the international phases 
of the whale situation. 

I would like to put in the record a pamphlet by Dr. Frederic A. 
Lucas entitled " The Passing of the Whale." He is the curator in 
chief of the Museum of Arts and Sciences of the Brooklyn Institute. 
Dr. Lucas is one of the world's recognized authorities on the whaling 
industry, and in this pamphlet he points out the great decline in the 
offshore whale industry. He suggests that the only remedy is an 
international treaty. 

I Supplement to the Zoological Society Bulletin No. 30. Published by the New York Zoologi- 
cal Society. July, 1008.] 

THE PASSING OF THE WHALE. 

[By Fredep.ic A. Lucas, curator in c'Mef of the Museum of Arts and Sciences of the 

Brooklyn Institute.] 

The attention of all persons interested in the conservation of the animal 
resources of the world is especially directed to the article by Mr. Lucas on 
" The passing of the whale," published as a supplement to the present number 
of the Bulletin of the New York Zoological Society. It is a truthful statement 
by one of the best-informed students of the subject. The valuable whale is un- 
questionably going fast — faster than the valuable fur seal — and soon may be 
classed with the sea otter, American bison, and other wealth-producing animals 
whose commercial value has been lost to man. As a source of wealth the whale 
is the most important of all. 

Steps have been taken by the Zoological Society to place the information 
contained in this article before legislative bodies in many parts of the world. 

The society, as a scientific association devoted to the preservation of wild 
animals, earnestly requests the careful consideration of it by every legislator 
into whose hands it may come. — C. H. T. 

The Xew York Zoological Society at its annual meeting in January adopted a 
resolution relative to the protection of whales by international agreement. 

The idea that the preservation of whales was necessary and desirable was 
new to many members of the society. This was perhaps natural, as whales and 
winding industries do not come under the observation of the average citizen. 
Yet whales as economic animals have been and continue to be of immense value 
to man. They are of the greatest possible interest zoologically, since they are 
the largest of existing animals. One species — the sulphur-bottom whale — attains 
a length of 80 feet, being of greater size than the extinct dinosaurs, the largest 
of the wonderful animals of the past. 

From a strictly American viewpoint the whale deserves serious consideration, 
as it was half a century ago the basis of an industry which brought great wealth 
to the Xew England States. In the days when the whale fishery was most im- 
portant there were over 600 American ships and many thousands of men regu- 
larly engaged in that industry. 

During a period of nearly 50 years prior to about 1S72 the value of whale oil 
and whalebone landed by American vessels amounted to more than $270,000,000. 

Subsequently the whaling industry, as conducted from vessels, gradually 
declined. The present method of winding from shore stations is of quite recent 
introduction. 

It is a startling fact that nearly all species of whales are threatened with 
parly extinction by reason of the destructiveness of modern methods of whaling, 
practiced chiefly from stations located on shore. 

The protection of whales is therefore necessary if any whales are to be left 
for future supply. How rapidly whales of all kinds, save possibly the sperm 
whale, are disappearing before the attacks of man, may be inferred from a 
glance of the shore-whaling industry and particularly at that of Newfoundland, 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 185 

whose statistics are most readily available ami where the effects of modern 
methods are most apparent. 

Before 1903 we have no data as to the number of whales taken along the coast 
Of Newfoundland and can only say that the value of whale produce rose suc- 
cessively from $1,58] in 1898 to $86,428 in 1900 and $125,287 in 1902. Making a 
rougb estimate, based on the value of the products of the whale fishery, one may 
say that this represents not less than 350 whales, more probably about 500, since 
prior to 1902 the waste was very great. The first whaling station in which 
modern methods were adopted was estahlished in 1897 and its success was so 
great that in 1903 four others had been erected and three more planned, 
•although hut three steamers were then employed. R. T. McGrath, in the report 
of the Newfoundland department of fisheries for 1903, gave it as his opinion that 
no more applications for factories should lie granted for some years to come, 
saying: "Two factories are about to be erected, one at Trinity and one at 
Bonavista, during the coming year. This will make eight factories in all. viz, 
Balena, Aquaforte, Snooks Arm. Chaleur Bay, Cape Broyle, Bonavista, ami 
Trinity. In my opinion no further applications should be granted for some 
years. If licenses are given without restriction, it will result in complete deple- 
tion of this industry within a short time; whilst if judiciously dealt with, it 
will he a profitable source of revenue and a great assistance to the laboring 
people of the colony for many years to come." This advice, however, was not 
heeded, the only restriction placed on whaling being that stations should not 
he nearer one another than 20 miles and that but one steamer should be em- 
ployed. These restrictions were practically of no avail, as one steamer was 
all that could then he employed to advantage and a run of 20 miles is nothing 
to a 12-knot vessel. So whaling stations rapidly multiplied until by 1905 eight- 
een were in operation, occupying all the more favorable locations about New- 
foundland, Labrador, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and fifteen steamers were 
employed. The effects of this overmultiplication were felt at once, and while in 
1903 three steamers took 858 whale, or an average of 286 each, in 1905 fifteen 
steamers took but S92 whales or an average of only 59 a vessel. 

Whales. 

In 1903, 3 vessels took __1 85S 

In 1904, 10 vessels took 1, 275 

In 1905. 15 vessels took 892 

Iu 1906, 14 vessels look 429 

In 1907. 14 vessels took : 481 

3, 935 
Taken between 1898-1902, estimated 350 



4, 285 



Thus in 10 years more than 4,000 whales have been captured in the immediate 
vicinity of Newfoundland. The effect was disastrous and caused the ruin of the 
smaller companies, the chief sufferers being the smaller shareholders who had 
invested their entire capital. 

One of the arguments in favor of indiscriminate whaling has been the theory 
That whales had the whole world to draw upon and that the depletion in any one 
locality would soon be supplied by overflow from another. To a slight extent 
this may he true, for there seems some reason to believe that whales do now and 
then pass from the Pacific to the Atlantic. 1 hut on the whole whales are restricted 
in their range as other animals, 2 and extermination in one place means extermi- 
nation in that locality for all time. Another fallacy was the belief that the sup- 
ply or whales was practically limitless and that one might "slay and slay and 
slay" continuously. There is not a more mischievous term than " inexhaustible 
supply." and certainly none more untrue. So we see our inexhaustible forests on 
the verge of disappearing, our inexhaustible supplies of coal and oil daily grow- 
in:;' less, and the end of the inexhaustible supply of whales in sight. Man is reck- 
lessly spending the capital nature has been centuries in accumulating and the 
time will come when ids drafts will no longer be honored. It matters not 

1 ('apt. I'.ull slates that a sulphur-bottom whale shot on the coast of Norway contained a 
harpoon fired into it on the coast of Kamchatka and that a humpback killed off Aquaforte 
was; found to have in the flesh an unexploded bomb lauce lived from a San Francisco whaler 
in the Pacific. 

- For example, the sulphur-bottom is not found or occurs as a stracrtrler on the east coast 
of Newfoundland although once common on the south coast. 



186 ALASKA EISECEEIES. 

whether the vessel is a bucket or an ocean, one can only take out as nmch 
water as it contains and where all is outgo and no income, it is merely a ques- 
tion of time when one or the other will be emptied. 

The history of the Newfoundland whale fishery merely repeats what has 
taken place everywhere the whale has been hunted, the only difference being 
that owing to the limited area covered and the use of modern appliances results 
have been reached more quickly than in the days of sailing vessels and hand 
harpoons. 

It is a matter of record how the right whale was successively swept from 
the Atlantic coasts of Europe and North America, then from the North Pacific 
and finally from the Southern seas, and what has happened in the case of this 
species will happen in the case of others. 1 The great bowhead, owing to its 
restriction to a portion of the Arctic Seas, and the case with which it may be 
taken, is in a worse plight than his smaller relative and it is quite possible 
that the present generation will see its actual extermination. 2 And yet this 
monster once flourished in such numbers that for nearly three centuries its 
capture gave employment to hundreds of vessels and thousands of men. How 
abundant this species actually was we can only surmise from the former size 
of the whaling fleet and the statistics of its catch, though the old-time wood 
cuts showing the chase of the whale seem not to exaggerate its abundance. 
The American whaling fleet at the time of its greatest activity numbered from 
500 to more than 600 sail, while in England, our most active competitor, from 
25 to 60 vessels cleared from the port of Hull alone and several other towns 
contributed to swell the Arctic fleet which comprised from 150 to 250 vessels. 

The imports of whalebone into the United States from 1805 to 1905 were 
81,985,655 pounds. Averaging 2,000 pounds per whale, a rather high estimate, 
this would represent no less than 40,S04 right and bowhead whales taken by 
American whalers. 

Taking the port of Hull, England, we know partly by the actual returns and 
partly by estimates based on the yield of oil, that the ships of this port between 
1722 and 1S20 took in Davis Strait and on the east -coast of Greenland no less 
than 10,207 whales and a fair estimate of the total English catch would be 
about 20,000 right and bowhead whales, so that in two centuries not less than 
50,000 were killed by English and American whalers alone. 

But this is only a portion of the catch taken in the north, for as early as 
1660 the Dutch sent 500 ships to the Spitzbergen fishery alone, and by the end 
of the century the number had risen to 2,000. Eveu though many of these were 
so small that nowadays they would be looked upon as mere boats, the total 
catch prior to 1750 must have mounted into the thousands. 3 

The contrast of these figures and the returns for the past two years show 
to what a low ebb the whales of this part of the world have been reduced, for 
in 1906 the catch of the Dundee fleet was but seven, and in 1907 only three 
whales were taken, one of these even being a yearling. 

The catch of the San Francisco fleet was 20 in 1906 and 82 in 1907, but the 
success of the past year is the direct outcome of failure the year before, and 
the number of bowheads taken this year will undoubtedly be small. 

Nothing can possibly prevent the extermination of the bowhead but the dis- 
covery of some perfect substitute for whalebone, and there seems not the 
slightest probability that this will be done, so that this huge creature will be 
one of the many victims immolated on the altar of fashion. Meanwhile it is 
worth noting that there is not a specimen of this whale in the United States 
and very few in the world, and that some of the money being spent in futile 
endeavors to reach the North Pole might much better be devoted to chartering 
a whaler and securing one or two examples of the bowhead before it is too 
late. 

The right whale was the first to be commercially exterminated ; that is so 
reduced in numbers that its pursuit was no longer profitable, because it fre- 
quented the shores of temperate regions and there brought forth its young. 
It required but few years to wipe out the California gray whale, as it was 

1 The writer is quite aware that this species still survives and, owing to the cessation of 
whaling for some years, has even increased in some localities. This increase is now being 
taken, and in a year or two the species will again be at a low ebb. 

2 The possible extermination of the right and bowhead whales was foreseen as early as 
1850, and comments made on the large number of whales lost by sinking and on the evil 
results of killing the rischt whale on its breeding grounds. 

3 According to Wieland the number of bowheads taken by the Dutch between 1669 and 
1758 was 57:590. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 187 

confined to a comparatively small area and the decimation of the others is bill 
a matter of time. 

The great bowliead as we have just seen is on the verge of actual, not merely 
commercial, extermination, and is liable to be blotted out of existence at any 
time and other Species will follow unless something is done to preserve them. 

For many years certain species of whales, notably the sulphur bottom; 
enjoyed more or less immunity from pursuit, due to the difficulty of taking 
them by methods then in vogue and the small profit yielded when they were 
taken. But when the present appliances for taking whales were perfected the 
death knell of these whales was sounded and unless some measures are taken 
to protect them, they, too, will suffer' the fate of the bowhead. 

Whaling stations are being established the world over wherever the con- 
ditions are favorable; there are several on the Pacific const, several on the 
coast of Patagonia, and while in deference to the fishermen, restrictions have 
been placed on the Norwegian whale fisheries, other stations have been opened 
in Iceland and the Faroes. There is some whaling from New Zealand and 
South Africa, and concessions have been granted for other parts of the world. 
This does not include whaling for sperm whales and humpback carried on from 
various Atlantic and South American ports. Moreover the rapid decline of the 
Newfoundland whale fishery has led some of the companies to send their 
steamers south in winter, accompanied by a large steamer fitted out for cutting 
in whales and trying out the oil, thus acting as a floating whaling station that 
may be moved from place to place as occasion requires or favorable conditions 
offer. 

We speak of the decline of the whaling industry when it is really the passing 
of the whale, for there can be no industry in the proper sense of the word 
when there is no planting, only reaping, no attempt to provide for the harvest 
to be gathered. 

Whales can be protected and protected very easily, but- it can only be done 
by international agreement. When we are far enough advanced, many indus- 
tries like whaling and sealing, now on the verge of extermination, may be 
pursued for all time. This may be very difficult to bring about, but may be 
accomplished in time. The pity of it is. from a purely practical standpoint, 
that animals which can so readily be preserved should be swept out of ex- 
istence. 

Mr. Edmonds. Is not there at present some regulation in regard to 
the Avhaling industry in British Columbia? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. I understand that a limitation is placed 
upon the distance as to the location of shore stations : they must 
be something like 75 miles apart, I believe. There is also a limita- 
tion, I think, as to the number of killing steamers that may be used 
by each station. In killing a whale in the shore fishery, a bomb is 
fired into the animal from a gun mounted at the bow of a small 
steamer. 

The Chairman. I would like you to furnish for the record a copy 
of the British fishing regulations. (See Appendix "CV p. 118.) 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. In that connection, I suggest that it may 
be useful to put in the record a bill introduced in the British House 
of Commons to regulate the whale industry in Ireland. I think that 
it contains some valuable information along this line which possibly 
may be of interest to the committee. 

A DILL To regulate whale fisheries in Ireland. 

Be it enacted hp the King's most E.rcdlcnt Majesty, Ini and irith the adriee 
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present 
Parliament assembled, and hp the anthoritp of the same, as follow*: 

1. No person shall, in any part of Ireland, land any whale, or engage in any 
way in the manufacture from whales of oil or other primary products, without 
a license granted and issued subject to the conditions hereinafter provided, and 
any person acting in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offense 



188 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

under this act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not 
exceeding five hundred pounds. 

2. It shall be lawful for the fishery authority to issue licenses under this act, 
subject to the following conditions : 

(1) A person applying to the fishery authority for a license shall, at least 
two months before making such application, publish notice thereof once in each 
of two consecutive weeks with an interval between each publication of not less 
than six days in one or more newspaper or newspapers circulating in the district 
in which the factory or station existing or to be erected is situate ; such notice 
shall state the name and address of the applicant, and shall contain a descrip- 
tion of the site or intended site of the factory or station where the process of 
manufacture as aforesaid is to be conducted. 

(2) It shall be lawful for the council of any county, county district, or county 
borough in which the factory or station existing or to be erected is situate, or 
for any person interested, within fourteen clays after the publication of such 
notice as aforesaid, to lodge with the fishery authority objections to the granting 
of any such license, and the fishery authority shall consider any such objections, 
and, after such inquiry, if any, as they may think necessary, shall grant or 
refuse such license. 

(3) Each license shall contain a description of the site of the factory or 
station erected or proposed to be erected as aforesaid, and no such factory or 
station shall be removed from the site in the said license described to any 
other site unless and until such other site shall have been approved by the 
fishery authority and their approval shall have been indorsed on the license. 

(4) The license shall specify the number of whaling steamers (not exceeding 
three) that may be used or employed by the holder, and no whaling steamer in 
excess of the number specified in the license shall be used or employed by the 
holder. 

(5) No license shall be granted except to a British subject or to a company 
registered in Great Britain. 

(6) The fishery authority may at any time, on the application of the holder 
of a license, cancel the license ; but it shall not be lawful to transfer or assign 
any license without the consent of the fishery authority, and any transfer or 
assignment shall be indorsed upon the license. 

(7) There shall be paid to the fishery authority in respect of every license 
issued under the provisions of this act a sum of two hundred pounds if the 
license authorizes the use or employment of three whaling steamers, the sum 
of one hundred and fifty pounds if the license authorizes the use or employment 
of two whaling steamers, and the sum of one hundred pounds if the license 
authorizes the use or employment of one whaling steamer, and such sum shall 
be paid to the fishery authority on the issue of the license and thereafter 
annually during its "continuance. 

(8) Every license shall be subject to all the conditions contained in this act, 
or any by-law made in pursuance of this act, and it shall be lawful for the 
fishery authority, in the event of the infringement of any such condition by 
the holder of a license, or of the conviction of such holder or any person em- 
ployed by him. of an offense under this act, or under any by-law made in 
pursuance of this act. without compensation to cancel any license or to suspend 
any license for a specified period. 

3. (1) No holder of a license or person employed by him shall in the prose- 
cution of the whaling industry use any vessel other than the whaling steamer 
from or by which a whale shall have bt-en captured or killed, for vhe purpose 
of bringing or towing such whale to or toward any factory or station for 
manufacture. 

(2) Every whaling steamer employed by the holder of a license shall carry 
such distinctive mark as the fishery authority, with the consent of the board 
of trade, may from time to time prescribe, and such mark shall be specified 
in the license. 

(3) No holder of a license or person employed by him shall use, in the 
pursuit or capture of whales, any method or contrivance which does not include 
a harpoon with a whaling line attached thereto, and fixed or fastened to the 
whaling steamer from which the whale is captured or killed. 

(4) No person shall pursue, kill, or shoot at any whale within three miles 
of low-water mark of any part of the coast of Ireland, and no holder of a 
license or person employed by .him shall pursue, kill, or shoot at any whale 
within the distance of one mile from any boat or vessel lying at anchor or 
engaged in fishing. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 189 

(5) No holder of a license or person employed by him shall pursue, kill, 
or shoot whales between the first day of November in any year ami the thirty- 
tirsi day of March in the year Col-lowing, both days inclusive; or during such 
other period of the year (no1 exceeding five weeks) within such distance (not 
exceeding twenty miles) of any particular part of the coast of Ireland as may 
be prescribed by the fishery authority. 

(0) In this section the expression "mile" means a nautical mile. 

(7) Any person acting in contravention of this section shall he guilty of an 
offense under this act. 

(8) Where a whale which has heen lawfully shot at and struck shall carry 
with it a fixed line witlnr an area prohibited in terms of this section, nothing 
in this section contained shall make it unlawful to continue the pursuit of 
such whale and to kill it in such area. 

4. (1) Holders of licenses and all persons employed by them shall give all 
reasonable facilities for inspection by the fishery authority and the officers 
of that authority of all factories or stations and vessels employed by the 
holders of licenses, and shall make such returns on any matter connected with 
their whaling business as the fishery authority may from time to time pre- 
scribe, and if required by the fishery authority shall verify such returns by 
statutory declaration. 

(2) The expenses incurred in any year by the fishery authority in the 
execution of this act shall, to the amount approved by the treasury, he paid 
out of moneys provided by Parliament. 

5. (1) Nothing in this act contained shall make it unlawful for any person 
to drive ashore and appropriate, sell, or otherwise make use of the smaller 
whales known as bottle-nose and caa-ing whales, or to appropriate, sell, or 
otherwise make use of such whales, as he may find dead, whether floating on 
the sea or stranded on the shore. 

(2) Nothing in this act contained shall make it unlawful for any person to 
pursue any of the whaling industries commonly followed in Arctic or Antarctic 
waters, or to engage in the manufacture of oil or other products from whales 
captured in the exercise oi any such industry. 

6. Any person guilty of an offense under this act shall, save as otherwise 
provided, he liable on conviction to a penalty not exceeding £100. 

7. (1) The fishery authority may make by-laws for all or any of the follow- 
ing purposes, that is to say — 

(a) Prohibiting the use of any engine or implement in the pursuit, capture, 
or towing of whales, or any method of whaling which is in the opinion of 
that authority injurious to fisheries. 

( h ) Regulating the methods of manufacturing oil or other products from 
whales and the disposal of refuse ; 

and save as otherwise provided by this act the provisions with respect to 
by-laws contained in the fisheries (Ireland) act, 1S42 (including pVnal pro- 
visions), shall apply with the necessary modifications to every such by-law. 

(2) By any by-law made under this section the fishery authority may im- 
pose a fine for the breach of any such by-law not exceeding £10 for any one 
offense and may direct the forfeiture or destruction of any engine or implement 
used or attempted to be used in contravention of any such by-law, and every 
rope, line, tackle, warp, iron, and other thing attached to or used with such 
engine or implement. 

(3) Any engine, implement, rope, line, tackle, warp, iron, or other thing 
which is under any sueb by-law liable to be forfeited or destroyed may be 
seized by any duly authorized officer of the fishery authority or any officer 
appointed by the fishery authority for the purposes of the fisheries (Ireland) 
act, 1842, and shall when seized be dealt with in the manner provided by 
section one hundred and three of the said act, and for the purpose of such 
seizure any such officer may go on board any vessel engaged in whaling. 

8. (1) All offenses under this act may be prosecuted, and all penalties, costs, 
or expenses imposed or recoverable tinder this act may be recovered in a 
summary manner, and a summons in respect of any such offense may be 
served upon the person to whom it is directed in any part of the United 
Kingdom. 

(2) Section eighty-nine (which relates to the powers of officers) and section 
ninety-six (winch relates to the jurisdiction of magistrates of maritime coun- 
ties) of the fisheries (Ireland) act, 1842, shall apply, wfith the necessary 
modifications, for the purposes of this act. 



190 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

(3) All license fees, penalties, and moneys paid or recovered under this act 
shall, notwithstanding- any provision in any other act, be paid to the fishery 
authority, and shall be applied by that authority for the purposes of sea 
fisheries as defined by the agriculture and technical instruction (Ireland) act, 
1899, or any act amending that act. 

9. In this act the expression "whaling steamer" includes any ship used 
for the purpose of capturing or killing whales, whether propelled by steam 
power or otherwise ; and the expression " fishery authority " means the de- 
partment of agriculture and technical instruction for Ireland ; and the ex- 
pressions " county district " and " county borough " have the same meanings 
respectively as in the local government (Ireland) act, 1898. 

10. (1) This act shall apply to Ireland only and shall come into operation 
on the first clay of Januarj nineteen hundred and nine. 

(2) This act may be cited as the whale fisheries (Ireland) act. 1908. 

Mr. Jones. My understanding and interpretation of this particu- 
lar feature of the bill is that it is so drawn in order to, in a measure, 
control the existing whaling stations in Alaska, and not for the pro- 
tection of the whale outside of the 3-mile limit. Now, why should 
not some restrictions be placed on these two whaling stations just as 
much as on the canneries in Alaska? As Mr. Bower has said, they 
use the entire whale. The blubber is used for oil, and the meat, as 
Judge Wickersham says, is largely consumed by the natives. They 
take the meat home and dry it and use it in the wintertime. Cer- 
tainly a whale logically comes under the Bureau of Fisheries just as 
much as a fish does, because it is an aquatic animal, but if there is not 
some mention made regarding these two existing whaling stations, 
or any others that might be installed there in future years, there will 
be absolutely no control over the manner in which they may conduct 
business in the Territory of Alaska. 

The Chairman. From the standpoint of revenue, Alaska is a new 
country that is just being developed, and the whaling industry is 
just as much an industry of Alaska as the salmon fisheries. I do not 
see why they should not have the benefit of any proper regulations. 

Mr. YValsh. I have no objection to the revenue part of it, but I 
do not see how it is going to protect the whale. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, you can not protect the whale in- 
dustry on the high seas. I think we all agree to that. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER BRITTON, 0E BRITTON & GRAY, 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. Brixton. Eepresenting the Alaska Packers' Association I 
would like in its behalf and for those associated with it to speak 
briefly on the general features of bill 9528. 

No one is or can be more interested in the preservation and per- 
petuation of this industry than the people who have invested millions 
of dollars and through such investment developed the industry to 
its present standing. Ever since the first act of Congress dealing 
with the subject our clients have cooperated with the Government 
in the proper control of the fisheries, and with the express purpose 
of developing and perpetuating the same. They have at all times 
believed in and advocated one central capable governing body and 
have been willing to pay a fair proportion of their income in sup- 
porting such administration. Our position now is exactly the same. 

We believe the control of the Alaskan fisheries is peculiarly a sub- 
ject falling within the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the Fed- 
eral Government, because of its control of navigable waters and its 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 191 

necessary control of international and interstate relations. The fish- 
ing being done largely in navigable Wafers, Congress alone has con- 
trol over them, both as affecting the relations with other nations and 
as between different States and the Territory of Alaska. These regu- 
lations directly affect the value of the operations of the private pro- 
prietors and are of the utmost importance to them. For example, 
the Secretary of Commeice has, by previous acts of Congress, plenary 
power over any dams, barricades, fences, and traps used in any of 
the waters of Alaska, within prescribed distances from the shore. 

This jurisdiction also extends to manner of operating and setting 
any nets or fishing appliances across or above the tidewaters of 
any stream. It also extends to the power of setting aside specific 
streams or lakes as preserves for spawning grounds. It includes pro- 
hibition and regulation of the labeling and branding of canned 
salmon. It provides for maintaining hatcheries for propagation of 
fish and extends jurisdiction over hatcheries operated by private 
companies. These and other regulations within the sole power of 
Congress indicate that it has been the general legislative plan of 
Congress that the Federal Government should have complete and 
full control over the entire arrangement and method of operating 
the fisheries and canneries in Alaska. 

The salmon business in Alaska is a particularly hazardous one. 
The rigors and perils of transportation in preparing for operations, 
in fishing and in shipping the fish and the climatic conditions make 
the business hazardous and speculative. Of all the companies that 
have operated in Alaska for the past 20 years, very few have 
declared substantial or any dividends and many have lost all they 
invested. While the business may seem profitable on paper and 
when viewed from a distance, much is required in the way of eco- 
nomical and careful management. Largely through such manage- 
ment the companies have been enabled to develop foreign markets. 
The exports in canned salmon during 1913 amounts to about 
70,000,000 pounds, of a value of $6,500,000. This export trade, of 
great value to our country, is constantly jeopardized by Asiatic com- 
petition, and additional burdens by way of taxes would hasten its 
extermination, and but for the foreign demand the Alaska salmon 
business could not be carried on to advantage. 

The business, of extreme importance to the people of the United 
States in developing a wholesome and cheap food supply, giving 
employment to thousands of its people, should receive the encourage- 
ment of the Government. There are other large and extensive fishing 
interests in the United States, but so far as I know the Government 
has never attempted to impose a burden upon their business by direct 
taxation. The imposition of any tax is not only contrary to the gen- 
eral policy of the Government in not taxing the fishing interests, 
but is contrary to good governmental policy by imposing a charge 
upon food and to that extent limiting the saie of a wholesome article 
of food at a reasonable price. As any tax of this nature must ulti- 
mately be borne by the consumer, or the industry cease, the only re- 
, suit of increasing the tax is to further increase the cost of the article 
to the general public. 

Governmental control of this industry was first predicated solely 
upon the theory of preserving and perpetuating the fish, and in that 
effort the canners always have been and still jire ready to cooperate. 



192 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Starting in 1900, the Government required each canning estab- 
lishment to construct and maintain a hatchery, the purpose being to 
perpetuate at first four times, and then ten times, the number of fish 
caught. When this was found impracticable, and after an examina- 
tion and report by a commission headed by Dr. David Starr Jordan, 
the act of June 26, 1906, was enacted. 

I suggest that this law, which is the existing law in Alaska, be 
inserted in the record. 

The Chairman. The act of June 26, 1906, will be inserted in the 
record, if there is no objection. 

Mr. Wickersham. There are two acts; which one do you desire 
inserted in the record ? 

Mr. Britton. The act of June 26, 1906. 

(The act is as follows:) 

AN ACT For the protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska. 1 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That every person, company, or cor- 
poration carrying on the business of canning, curing, or preserving fish or 
manufacturing fish products within the territory known as Alaska, ceded to the 
United States by Russia by the treaty of March thirtieth, eighteen hundred and 
sixty-seven, or in any of the waters of Alaska over which the United States 
has jurisdiction, shall, in lieu of all other license fees and taxes therefor and 
thereon, pay license taxes on their said business and output as follows : Canned 
salmon, four cents per case ; pickled salmon, ten cents per barrel ; salt salmon 
in bulk, five cents per one hundred pounds ; fish oil, ten cents per barrel ; fer- 
tilizer, twenty cents per ton. The payment and collection of such license taxes 
shall be under and in accordance with the provisions of the act of March third, 
eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, entitled "An act to define and punish crimes 
in the district of Alaska, and to provide a code of criminal procedure for the 
District," and amendments thereto. 

Sec. 2. That the catch and pack of salmon made in Alaska by the owners of 
private salmon hatcheries operated in Alaska shall be exempt from all license 
fees and taxation of every nature at the rate of ten cases of canned salmon to 
every one thousand red or king salmon fry liberated, upon the following 
conditions : 

That the Secretary of Commerce may from time to time, and on the applica- 
tion of the hatchery owner shall, within a reasonable time thereafter, cause 
such private hatcheries to be inspected for the purpose of determining the 
character of their operations, efficiency, and productiveness ; and if he approve 
the same shall cause notice of such approval to be filed in the office of the 
clerk or deputy clerk of the United States district court of the division of the 
District of Alaska wherein any such hatchery is located, and shall also notify the 
owners of such hatchery of the action taken by him. The owner, agent, officer, 
or superintendent of any hatchery the effectiveness and productiveness of 
which has been approved as above provided shall, between the thirtieth day of 
June and the thirty-first day of December of each year, make proof of the 
number of salmon fry liberated during the twelve months immediately preced- 
ing the thirtieth day of June by a written statement under oath. Such proof 
shall be filed in the office of the clerk or deputy clerk of the United States 
district court of the division of the District of Alaska wherein such hatchery 
is located, and when so filed shall entitle the respective hatchery owners to the 
exemption as herein provided ; and a false oath as to the number of salmon 
fry liberated shall be deemed perjury and subject the offender to all the pains 
and penalties thereof. Duplicates of such statements shall also be filed with 
the Secretary of Commerce. It shall be the duty of such clerk or deputy clerk 
in whose office the approval and proof heretofore provided for are filed to 
fothwith issue to the hatchery owner, causing such proofs to be filed, certifi- 
cates which shall not be transferable and of such denominations as said owner 
may request (no certificate to cover fewer than one thousand fry), covering in 
the' aggregate the number of fry so proved to have been liberated ; and such 
certificates may be used at any time by the person, company, corporation, or 
association to whom issued for the payment pro tanto of any license fees or 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 193 

taxes upon or against or on account of any catch or pack of salmon made by 
them in Alaska; and it shall be the duty of all public officials charged with the 
duly of collecting or receiving such license toes or taxes to accept such certifi- 
cates in lieu of money in payment of nil license fees or taxes upon or against 
the pack of canned salmon at the ratio of one thousand fry for each ten cases 
of salmon. No hatchery owner shall obtain the rebates from the output of 
any hatchery to which he might otherwise he entitled under this act unless the 
efficiency of said hatchery has first heen approved by the Secretary of Com- 
merce in the manner herein provided for. 

Sec. 3. That it shall he unlawful to erect or maintain any dam, barricade, 
fence, trap, fish wheel, or other fixed or stationary obstruction, except for pur- 
poses of fish culture, in any of the waters of Alaska at any point where the dis- 
tance from shore to shore is less than five hundred feet, or within five hundred 
yards of the mouth of any red-salmon stream- where the same is less than five 
hundred feet in width, with the purpose or result of capturing salmon or pre- 
venting or impeding their ascent to their spawning grounds, and the Secretary 
of Commerce is hereby authorized and directed to have any and all such un- 
lawful obstructions removed or destroyed. 

Sec. 4. That it shall be unlawful to lay or set any drift net, seine, set net, 
pound net, trap, or any other fishing appliance for any purpose except for pur- 
poses of fish culture, across or above the tide waters of any creek, stream, river, 
estuary, or lagoon, for a distance greater than one-third the width of such creek, 
stream, river, estuary, or lagoon, or within one hundred yards outside of the 
mouth of any red-salmon stream where the same is less than five hundred feet 
in width. It shall he unlawful to lay or set any seine or net of any kind within 
one hundred yards of any other seine, net, or other fishing appliance which is 
being or which has been laid or set in any of the waters of Alaska, or to drive 
or construct any trap or any other fixed fishing appliance within six hundred 
yards laterally or within one hundred yards endwise of any other trap or fixed 
fishing appliance. 

Sec. 5. That it shall be unlawful to fish for, take, or kill any salmon of any 
species in any manner or by any means except by rod, spear, or gaff, in any of 
the waters of Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction, except 
Cook Inlet, the delta of Copper River, Bering Sea, and the waters tributary 
thereto, from six o'clock postmeridian of Saturday of each week until six o'clock 
antemeridian of the Monday following, or to fish for, or catch, or kill in any 
manner or by any appliances except by rod, spear, or gaff, any salmon in any 
stream of less than one hundred yards in width in Alaska between the hours of 
six o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning of the following day 
of each and every day of the week. Throughout the weekly close season herein 
prescribed the gate, mouth, or tunnel of all stationary and floating traps shall be 
closed, and twenty-five feet of the webbing or net of the " heart " of such traps 
on each side next to the " pot " shall be lifted or lowered in such manner as to 
permit the free passage of salmon and other fishes. 

Sec. 6. That the Secretary of Commerce may. in his discretion, set aside any 
streams or lakes as preserves for spawning grounds, in which fishing may be 
limited or entirely prohibited ; and when, in his judgment, the results of fish- 
ing operations in any stream, or off the mouth thereof, indicate that the number 
of salmon taken is larger than the natural production of salmon in such 
stream, he is authorized to establish close seasons or to limit or prohibit fishing 
entirely for one year or more within such stream or within five hundred yards 
of the mouth thereof, so as to permit salmon to increase: Provided, however, 
That such power shall be exercised only after all persons interested shall be 
given a hearing, of which due notice must be given by publication ; and where 
the interested parties are known to the department they shall be personally 
notified by a notice mailed not less than thirty days previous to such hearing. 
No order made under this section shall be effective before the next calendar 
year after same is made: And provided further, That such limitations and pro- 
hibitions shall not apply to those engaged in catching salmon who keep such 
streams fully stocked with salmon by artificial propagation. 

Sec 7. That it shall be unlawful to can or salt for sale for food any salmon 
more than forty-eight hours after it has been killed. 

Sec. S. That it shall he unlawful for any person, company, or corporation 
wantonly to waste or destroy salmon or other food fishes taken or caught in 
any of the waters of Alaska. 

Sec 9. That it shall be unlawful for any person, company, or corporation 
canning, salting, or curing fish of any species in Alaska to use any label, brand, 



194 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

or trade-mark which shall tend to misrepresent the contents of any package of 
fish offered for sale : Provided, That the use of the terms " red," " medium 
reel," " pink," " chum," and so forth, as applied to the various species of Pacific 
salmon under present trade usages shall not be deemed in conflict with the 
provisions of this act when used to designate salmon of those known species. 

Sec. 10. That every person, company, and corporation engaged in catching, 
curing, or in any manner utilizing fishery products, or in operating fish hatch- 
eries in Alaska, shall make detailed annual reports thereof to the Secretary of 
Commerce, on blanks furnished by him, covering all such facts as may be re- 
quired with respect thereto for the information of the department. Such re- 
ports shall be sworn to by the superintendent, manager, or other person having 
knowledge of the facts, a separate blank form being used for each establish- 
ment in cases where more than one cannery, saltery, or other establishment is 
conducted by a person, company, or corporation, and the same shall be for- 
warded to the department at the close of the fishing season and not later than 
December fifteenth of each year. 

Sec. 11. That the catching or killing, except with rod, spear, or gaff, of any 
fish of any kind or species whatsoever in any of the waters' of Alaska over 
which the United States has jurisdiction, shall be subject to the provisions 
of this act, and the Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized to make and 
establish such rules and regulations not inconsistent with law as may be 
necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this act. 

Sec. 12. That to enforce the provisions of this act and such regulations as 
he may establish in pursuance thereof, the Secretary of Commerce is author- 
ized and directed to depute, in addition to the agent and assistant agent of 
salmon fisheries now provided by law, from the officers and employees of the 
Department of Commerce, a force adequate to the performance of all work 
required for the proper investigation, inspection, and regulation of the Alaskan 
fisheries and hatcheries, and he shall annually submit to Congress estimates 
to cover the cost of the establishment and maintenance of fish hatcheries in 
Alaska, the salaries and actual traveling expenses of such officials, and for 
such other expenditures as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this act. 

Sec. 13. That any person, company, corporation, or association violating any 
provision of this act or any regulation established in pursuance thereof shall, 
upon conviction thereof, lie punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or im- 
prisonment at hard labor for a term of not more than ninety days, or by 
both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court ; and in case 
of the violation of any of the provisions of section four of this act and con- 
viction thereof a farther fine of not more than $2."i0 per diem may, at the dis- 
cretion of the court, be imposed for each day such obstruction is maintained. 
And every vessel or other apparatus or equipment used or employed in viola- 
tion of any provision of this act, or of any regulation made thereunder, may 
be seized by order of the .Secretary of Commerce, and shall be held subject 
to the payment of such fine or tines as may be imposed. 

Sec. 14. That the violation of any provision of this act may be prosecuted 
in any district court of Alaska or any district court of the United States in the 
State's of California, Oregon, or Washington. And it shall be the duty of 
the Secretary of Commerce to enforce the provisions of this act and the rules 
and regulations made thereunder. And it shall be the duty of the district 
attorney to whom any violation is reported by any agent or representative of 
the Department of Commerce to institute proceedings necessary to carry out 
the provisions of this act. 

Sec 15. That all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of 
this act are, so far as inconsistent, hereby repealed. 

Sec. 16. That this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its 
passage. 

Approved, June 26, 1906. 

In imposing a tax of 4 cents per case, this law intended that the 
proceeds should go toward preserving the industry and to that end 
the owners of private hatcheries were allowed a rebate on the tax 
to the extent of the fry liberated by them. 

Nothing is said in the act of 1906 about the proceeds of these 
taxes going into the Alaska fund, which fund was created by the 
act of 1905; but, in some way, the money found its way into such 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 195 

fund and the Alaska fisheries have from year to year paid large 
sums for the general Territorial expenses, which funds should have 
keen spent in regulating, controlling, and perpetuating the Industry 
itself. In exacting this tax. intended for the protection of the in- 
dustry itself, Congress made it clear that the business was not to 
be taxed otherwise. 

In the act of 190G express provision was made that these license 
fees and taxes should be in lieu of all other license fees and taxes 
upon the business and upon the output, and in the organic act of 
1912 it was expressly provided that the Territory should not have 
the power to amend or repeal any act of Congress relating to the 
fish, postal, internal revenue, and other laws of the United States. 

I should like to file with the committee, not as a part of the record 
to be printed but for its use, a copy of the hearings on Senate bill 
5856, in the Sixty-second Congress, which record is full of very 
interesting data on all phases of this question. At that time very 
full hearings were given by the Senate committee extending over 
a long period of time and a great deal of the information which 
this committee desires and needs now is found in the record of the 
hearings before that committee. 

Mr. Greene. What was the number of that bill ? 

Mr. Britton. Senate bill 5856 of the Sixty-second Congress. 

The Chairman. The clerk to the committee will secure copies of 
those hearings. 

Mr. Britton. I have an extra copy of the hearings, which I will 
file ; I think they are pretty scarce. 

Since that hearing various efforts have been made to formulate 
a bill satisfactory to all parties and H. R. 9528 is the nearest ap- 
proach to that end. 

This bill was drawn upon the theory of continuing Federal con- 
trol and as the Territory was receiving from the Alaska fund a con- 
siderable sum with no expense attached it was deemed wise to con- 
tinue the past legislation and have the license fees and taxes pay- 
able under this act to be in lieu of all other license fees and taxes 
including the tax on real and personal property located in Alaska. 
We are satisfied to leave it that way, but should Mr. Wickersham's 
suggestion be concurred in by the committee, as it apparently was 
by Secretary Redfield, and the Territory of Alaska be given the 
right to impose and collect a property tax, the bill must be differ- 
ently arranged. 

I personally believe the correct method is to allow the Territory 
to collect such property tax which, according to the Delegate, would 
amount to about $95,000 annually. Then let the license fees and taxes 
collected by the Federal Government on the gear, the raw product, 
and the canned or frozen fish be used for the preservation and pro- 
tection of the industry paying the same. In other words, the Ter- 
ritory would then be in the position that a State occupies with a 
right to collect a property tax, and the license fees and taxes paid 
to the Federal Government would be used for the preservation and 
protection of the industry paying that particular license tax, which 
is the main purpose of a license tax. 

Mr. Curry. Are the canneries located on public land or on private 
land ? 

Mr. Britton. Most of them are located on private land. 



196 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Curry. Privately owned property ? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. I think all of them have practically se- 
cured title to the cannery sites under the law of Congress passed, I 
think, in 1884, for business and trade. 

Mr. Warren has some views concurred in by me as to the proper 
distribution of taxes, so I will only suggest that if the bill is to be 
changed as suggested by Mr. Wickersham, then it should be further 
changed so as to practically follow the Washington law. I want to 
leave with the committee a copy of the laws of Washington. 

Following that, the changes in the bill would be very few. Sec- 
tion 21 would be amended by striking out, on lines 19, 20, and 21, 
the words : 

Nor upon any property, real or personal, vised in said business in said terri- 
tory. 

And insert, on line 23, after the word " disapproved," the fol- 
lowing : 

But nothing in this act contained shall be construed as preventing the Terri- 
tory of Alaska from imposing a property tax under the organic law of August 
24, 1912, upon the real and personal property located in Alaska. 

The section would then read : 

That from and after the passage of this act the Territory of Alaska shall 
not pass any legislation that has the effect of repealing, altering, or amending 
this act, nor shall such Territory impose any license fees or taxes upon the 
business hereinbefore referred to nor upon the output thereof, and any such 
txisting statutes heretofore enacted by the Territory of Alaska are hereby ex- 
pressly disapproved ; but nothing in this act contained shall be construed as 
preventing the Territory of Alaska from imposing a property tax under the 
organic law of August 24, 1912, upon the real and personal property located in 
Alaska. 

To offset the $96,000 thus given the Territory, the revenue de- 
rived by the Federal Government from the license fees and tax upon 
the output should be changed, and I would suggest that the best 
way of reaching that result is by changing the rate on canned sal- 
mon from 4 cents per case for red and other salmon to 2 cents, and 
from 3 cents on humpback or pink to 1 cent. The estimated revenue 
from the canned salmon under this bill was $140,000. If the rate 
per case be changed from 4 and 2 to 2 and 1, it will reduce the 
amount by $80,000. This changes the amount given the Territory 
on its right to tax shore property and would reduce the amount 
receivable by the Government from this class to $60,000. Then, in 
order that no portion of this amount should go back to the Terri- 
tory, it having been given the right to tax shore property, section 4 
should be so amended, on page 5 of the bill, as to strike out from 
lines 2, 3, 4, and 5 the following words : 

And fifty per centum thereof shall be transferred annually to the treasurer 
of the Territory of Alaska for such purposes as the Territorial Legislature of 
Alaska may direct. The remaining fifty per centum — 

Those are the words that I would suggest be eliminated, so that the 
entire fund collected from the license fees and taxes by the United 
States should be placed in the fund known as the Alaska fishery fund 
and used, at the discretion of Congress, for the investigation, devel- 
opment, preservation, and conservation of the Alaska fisheries. 

By this rearrangement the property in Alaska, real and personal, 
will be subject to local taxation like all other property so situated. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 197 

The license fees and taxes collected by the Federal Government, and 
estimated as $450 on establishments, $30,573 on gear, $44,936 on raw 
product, $60,000 on canned salmon, and $13,53*2 on preserved fish, or 
a total of $149,491, will then be used by the Federal Government 
exclusively for purposes relating to the investigation, development, 
preservation, and conservation of the Alaska fisheries. I should say 
that this sum of money ought to be sufficient to enable the Bureau of 
Fisheries to properly and adequately take care of the industry. 

The $140,000 thus collectible, with the $90,000 paid the Territory 
for the property tax, would mean an increase of taxes on the industry 
over and above that now payable under existing law of something 
like $00,000 to $75,000 per annum. The fishing interests have not 
thought that it was fair to increase the rate to that amount; they 
have not believed that the industry could safely pay that amount, but 
after a great deal of discussion with the Bureau of Fisheries and 
other hearings that was the best that we could agree upon, and. carry- 
ing out that agreement in good faith, we are perfectly willing to 
stand before this committee and urge the passage of a bill carrying 
that rate into -effect. 

Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter that is somewhat personal 
to the Alaska packers. 

The Chairman. Before you get to that matter I should like to 
inquire about the tax collected on the raw fish. It is my impression 
that that is a tax which it would be impracticable to collect. 

Mr. Hadley. We have no difficulty in collecting that tax in the 
State of Washington. 

The Chairman. The conditions are different. I think it might be 
possible to levy that tax on the canneries which use the fish and that 
in some way they could charge it against those who catch the fish. 

Mr. Britton. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am not a practical 
fisherman nor familiar with matters up there, but for a great many 
years the only tax collected for the purpose of preserving and pro- 
tecting this industry has been upon the canned product. Now. other 
lines of industry are being developed. Fish are being taken out of 
Alaska not in cans, but in ice. cured in other ways, and it seemed a 
much more equitable method of distributing the tax which was being 
collected for the purpose of preserving the industry itself by making 
the raw product pay something, whether it went into a can or 
whether it went in some other way as an article of food. 

The Chairman. I think the tax is entirely equitable, but that there 
would be difficulty in collecting it. 

Mr. Britton. Why should the one branch of this industry, the 
canneries, simply because the tax is easily collectible from them, 
be required to stand the entire expense of governmental supervision 
and control. 

The Chairman. I do not want them to do it. 

Mr. Britton. We have no way of getting this tax from the people 
that we buy the fish from, and unless the Government sees fit to 
collect the tax from the people who catch the fish themselves, we 
never could get it back. 

The Chairman. Not unless you charged it back to them when you 
bought the fish? 

Mr. Britton. A great many of the canners catch their own fish. 
To that extent the Government is perfectly safe in getting the records 



198 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

and reports for the purpose of collecting the tax, but others do not 
catch their own fish ; they buy their fish. Without some provision of 
this kind, they would not be taxed equitably with the others. 

Mr. Curry. Do you know of any place in the world where the 
fisherman is taxed for his catch ? 

Mr. Britton. I do not know of any place in the world where an 
industry of this kind is taxed at all. 

Mr. Wickersham. Why do you not answer the question. 

Mr. Britton. Possibly you would like to ask the question again. 

Mr. Wickersham. In the State of Washington they do exactly 
that thing. 

Mr. Britton. The present law suggested here is very largely, if 
not almost completely, drafted on the Washington law. That law 
put a tax on the raw product as well as the finished article. 

Mr. Curry. Is there a tax levied on all fish ? 

Mr. Hadley. The independent fishermen and the sales of the 
canned product. 

Mr. Curry. On salmon and all fish? 

Mr. Hadley. All classes. The salmon of the merchantable catch, 
I think. There is a new code which I am not as familiar with as 
the old one. I think there is no doubt of that. Is not that right ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. I should like to know whether the tax is on salmon 
or all fish? 

Mr. Bower. The raw-product tax in the State of Washington is on 
salmon, as I remember. 

Mr. Curry. Salmon only? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Warrex. This is the law: 

For each 100 pounds, or fraction thereof, of smelt, herring, or shad. 3 cents. 

For each 100 pounds, or fraction thereof, of shrimp, 15 cents. 

For each sturgeon, 7* cents. 

For each gross of crabs, 10 cents. 

For each ton of clams, gross weight in shells, 75 cents. 

Mr. Curry. This proposed law is based on the Washington law % 

Mr. Warren. Very largely. 

Mr. Bower. And the Oregon code also. 

Mr. Britton. Something was said the other clay with reference to 
taking over the hatcheries." The Alaska Packers' Association was one 
of the earliest companies to follow the directions of the Treasury 
Department and construct and maintain hatcheries in Alaska. They 
still own two operating hatcheries there. These hatcheries were 
constructed and have been carried on under the direct instruction of 
the Government by the Treasury regulations that have heretofore 
been referred to. The fact that they have not paid is simply indica- 
tive of the fact that the Government has never allowed a sufficient 
rebate en the fry liberated to compensate the companies for the cost 
of liberating that number of fry. In other Avords, under the rule 
which the Government has by law fixed the companies have been 
required from year to year to pay a certain amount for the fry 
and then receive back from the Government a lesser sum, and we feel, 
if the Government is to take over the hatcheries, having compelled 
us to build them, in the first place, that the least they can do is to 
compensate us for the improvements upon a fair valuation. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 109 

Mr. Curry. How are the small salmon released from the hatcheries, 
when they are fry with a sack hanging onto them or after they 
develop ( 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Bower can tell you as to the regulations of 
liberation. 

Mr. Bower. The greater proportion are liberated as fry, with the 
sack attached, though a considerable number are fed and released 
when they are about H inches in length. Places for feeding are not 
equal to the demand. In other words, the hatcheries turn out a 
great many more fry than they would if adequate facilities existed 
for rearing them. This applies also to the Government stations. 

Mr. Curry. A very small percentage of the fry ever reach the 
ocean ? 

Mr. Bower, We hope a large percentage. 

Mr. Curry. Every fish, including the salmon itself, will eat the 
fry ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir; undoubtedly. 

Mr. Curry. They can not get away from them? 

Mr. Bower. It is much better to rear them when possible; but any 
lack along this line has been a matter of dollars and cents very 
largely. That is one of the things which we will improve if this 
bill is enacted into law, because Ave will have more funds. 

Mr. Curry. Do you not think that these hatcheries should be under 
the control of the Government? 

Mr. Bower. Most certainly. That seems to be the only proper way 
of handling the situation. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do the Government hatcheries turn the little 
fish loose when fry and before the} 7 become fingerlings? 

Mr. Bower. Only part of them. 

Mr. TVickersham. What proportion? 

Mr. Bower. I am not prepared to say. We rear as many as pos- 
sible, but if the number hatched is too large, we can not rear all of 
them with present facilities and so some of them, as the records 
will show, are planted as fry. 

Mr. Wickersham. What about the hatcheries owned by the Alaska 
packers, do they liberate them as fry or as fingerlings? 

Mr. Bower. Partly as fry and partly as fingerlings. The hatchery 
near Loring in southeastern Alaska probably feeds and plants more 
salmon in the fingerling stage than the number released as fry. In 
fact, I think the plan now is to pass practically all of the hatchery 
output to the rearing ponds. The ponds are larger than at any 
other hatchery in Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. If they are released as fry a very small proportion 
ever reach the ocean? 

Mr. Bower. There are many natural enemies which destroy them. 

Mr. Curry. Everything in the sea is a natural enemy. 

Mr. Bower. Young red salmon remain in fresh water a year. 
Mr. Wickersham. But when released as fry they have to go 
to sea? 

Mr. Bower. No; thev stay in the fresh water. 
Mr. Wickersham. Where at Karluk would they stay? 
Mr. Bower. Some of them would possibly stay in the lagoon and 
some would work up to the lake. 

46232— pt 3—16 3 



200 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. The hatchery there is right at the mouth of the 
stream ? 

Mr. Bower. About 2| miles up the stream. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is at a point where the fresh water strikes ? 
Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. We are on record in no uncertain fashion 
as believing that the Karluk hatchery is not located in the best 
possible place, and we hope to have it removed very soon. 

Mr. Brittox. It is located where the Government directed it to 
be located, is it not? 

Mr. Bower. It may have been when such matters were adminis- 
tered by the Treasury Department, but the Department of Com- 
merce had nothing to do with its location. 

Mr. Wickersham. You think it is at a point where it ought not 
to be? 

Mr. Bower. I would put it in this way: That its location is not 
by any manner of means the most favorable. We believe the 
hatchery ought to be up the lake, 15 miles above. 

Mr. Curry. A hatchery ought to be close to the spawning grounds 
and not near the mouth of a river. 
Mr. Bower. Always. 

Mr. Hadley. You say the Karluk hatchery was located under the 
direction of the Treasury Department? 

Mr. Bower. Yes. sir ; there Avas a requirement of the Treasury De- 
partment that hatcheries be located in Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. Was there any requirement that this particular 
hatchery should be located at this particular spot? 

Mr. Bower. Its location was no doubt approved by the Govern- 
ment at that time. 

Mr. Wickersham. In what way? 
Mr. Bower. Its location was approved. 
Mr. Wickersham. In what way? 

Mr. Bower. By inspection. That is my belief. In order to facili- 
tate operations of the hatchery an order was issued May 7, 1898, by 
the Secretary of the Treasury closing the Karluk Eiver to all salmon 
fishing except for the hatchery and by the natives for their domestic 
use, I will say further that after the Department of Commerce and 
Labor was given jurisdiction over the fisheries of Alaska in 1903 
the records show the hatchery was inspected and was approved. 

Mr. Wickersham. As a member of the working force of the Bu- 
reau of Fisheries, and having given it scientific study and careful 
attention, are you prepared to say that any of the fry turned out of 
the Karluk Hatchery ever go to sea, grow, and come back to the 
streams? 

Mr. Bower. It is my belief that some of them do. 
Mr. Wickersham. I know it may be your belief, but have you any 
reasonable argument or any reasonable facts on which to base that 
belief? Could you prove it. in other words? 

Mr. Bower. It is impossible to actually prove that any of them 
come back, but we have reasons to believe that the salmon fisheries 
are increased, or aided and supported, by hatcheries located on va- 
rious streams in Alaska, as well as in the States on the Pacific coast. 
The hatcheries in the States of Washington, Oregon, and California 
all show beneficial results. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 201 

Mr. Greene. Do you not think you ought to make provision to 
hold the fry until they are able to defend themselves before you let 
them go oft"? 

Mr. Bower. We most certainly feel that way. 

Mr. Greene. Why do you not do it. then? 

Mr. Bower. We do it as far as we are able with our means. 

Mr. Greene. Are you short of money? 

Mr. Bower. Yes; this bill gives us more money, and then we will 
be able to do more. 

Mr. Greene. I thought money was overflowing in the Treasury, 
but somehow whenever we want to use some money we find that we 
are hard up. 

The Chairman. It seems it has been that way from the beginning. 

Mr. Greene. I know ; but we have had a great deal of talk about 
the abundance of money in the Treasury. 

Mr, Hardy. They were that way under Teddy. 

Mr. Greene. I know ; and you want to get him back again, but I 
shall not encourage 3^011 in that. 

Mr. Wickersham." I want to ask Mr. Britton some questions. Mr. 
Britton, you are a member of the firm of Britton & Gray, and in this 
large volume of hearings had before the Senate committee your part- 
ner appeared as attorney for the Alaska Packers' Association — is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Britton. I believe so. 

Mr. Wickersham. I was present, so I am quite sure of it. You 
now say you represent the Alaska Packers' Association ? 

Mr. Britton. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many canneries has that association in 
Alaska? 

Mr. Britton. I really could not tell you. I am not here to testify 
to facts relating to the company's business, but I am here to repre- 
sent them in the matter of assisting, if possible, in the passage of 
the bill that they have agreed upon as being a proper bill. 

Mr. Wickersham. 'With whom did they agree upon it ? 

Mr. Britton. They agreed with their associates, with the Bureau 
of Fisheries, and with the Department of Commerce. 

Mr. Wickersham. You object to the -f cents a case tax or license 
fee placed by the Government on the canned output of your cannery 
and you ask to have it reduced to 2 cents and 1 cent? 

Mr. Britton. Only in the event that the suit is sustained allowing 
the Territory to impose a property tax upon real and personal 
property. 

Mr. Wickersham. It has that power now, has it not ? 

Mr. Britton. I think that question is in the court. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; there is no question in the court of its right 
to levy a property tax upon your real estate in Alaska. 

Mr. Britton. Xo. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is not involved at all. The excuse you 
gave for wanting a reduction in these rates, or one excuse, as you 
gave two 

Mr. Hadlet (interposing). For the information of the committee, 
and in connection with that last question, what is involved in the 
matter that is in the court? 



202 ALASKA FISHEBIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. I will bring that out shortly. You object to 
the high rate, as you say, of 4 cents per case upon this canned salmon 
for two reasons: First, because you think it is a burden upon your 
company which it ought not to pay and, second, because it is charged 
back upon the product and is finally paid by the purchaser — is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Britton. I said that the trend of any business suffering from 
a tax is to transfer the tax to the consumer, if possible. 

Mr. Wickersham. And you fear that will be done. 

Mr. Britton. I do not think that is necessarily limited to canned 
salmon, but I think it is true of any product. 

Mr. Wickersham. There has been no tax levied upon canned sal- 
mon since the act of 1900, or any change made in the law for 16 
years, has there? 

Mr. Britton. The act of 1906 was passed. 

Mr. Wickersham. That left it just the same, 1 cents and 2 cents, 
did it not? 

Mr. Bower. So far as the canned product is concerned it was 4 
cents a case. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is what we are talking about. 

Mr. Britton. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Has there been any increase in the price of 
canned salmon in the meantime? 

Mr. Britton. I think there has been a fluctuating price, an increase 
and decrease during those years. 

Mr. Wickersham. What is the price now as compared with what 
it was 16 years ago? 

Mr. Britton. I really could not tell you ; I do not know. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you not know that the price is 50 per cent 
greater than it was 16 years ago when that law was passed? 

Mr. Britton. I do not know. 

Mr. Wickersham. You do not know that there has been a steady 
increase in the price of canned salmon from year to year? 

Mr. Britton. No; but I doubt very much whether that is so. 

Mr. Wickersham. You say your company built this hatchery at 
Karluk under rules and regulations laid down by the Treasury De- 
partment ? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. In 1900? 

Mr. Britton. No, sir; I did not say the year that they built it, 

Mr. Wickersham. I beg your pardon, but I understood you to 
say that was when it was built. 

Mr. Britton. I really could not tell you. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Bower, when was it established? 

Mr. Bower. It was established in 1896. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was built under rules and regulations laid 
down by the Treasury Department. 

Mr. Britton. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was not built under any law passed by Con- 
gress. 

Mr. Britton. No ; I know of no such law. 

Mr. Wickersham. There was no law. then, requiring a canner or 
other fisherman in Alaska to build a hatchery? 

Mr. Britton. None that I know of. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 203 

Mr. Curry. Is there any rule of the department? 

Mr. Bower. A law was passed in 1896 which referred to the stock- 
ing of streams by private hatcheries, and the regulation of the Treas- 
ury Department of May 2, 1900, was based upon that authority. 
The Karluck hatchery was completed after that act of Congress. 

Mr. Ctjbrx And if there was not an act of Congress, but the de- 
partment had been vested by law with authority to make rules and 
regulations, it was still done by law. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is the point I wanted to bring out. That 
is the law. 

Mr. Curry. You know all about these things, and you would save a 
a lot of time if you would tell us these things instead of trying to get 
them out of a man who does not claim to know about them. 

Mr. Brittox. I think that Judge Wickersham understands very 
well that I am a lawyer in the District of Columbia, and not at all 
familiar with the details of the business there, and if he wants cer- 
tain information with reference to the facts and figures he can get 
them from other people much better than he can get them from me. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then I will not take your time by asking all 
those questions, but will turn to a question of law. I will call your 
attention to sections 21 and 25 of this bill. Section 21 has a repeal- 
ing clause in it, and it reads as follows : 

That from and after the passage of this act the Territory of Alaska shall not 
pass any legislation that has the effect of repealing, altering, or amending this 
act, nor shall said Territory impose any license fees or taxes upon the business 
hereinbefore referred to, nor upon the output thereof, nor upon any property, 
real or personal, used in said business in said Territory, and any such existing 
statutes heretofore enacted by the Territory of Alaska are hereby expressly 
disapproved. 

What statute does that have reference to, because I believe you said 
you assisted in preparing this bill ? 

Mr. Brittox. My recollection is that that has particular reference 
to the acts of 1913 and 1915 of the Territorial legislature. 

Mr. Wickersham. Levjdng license fees upon the output of the 
salmon canneries? 

Mr. Brittox. Yes, sir. My understanding is that notwithstand- 
ing the provisions in the act of June 26, 1906, which says that the 
license fees and taxes imposed by that act should be in lieu of all 
other license fees and taxes, and notwithstanding the language in the 
enabling act of 1912, that the Territory should not pass any law re- 
pealing or amending the act of Congress relating to fisheries, that 
the Territorial legislature did pass a law imposing a tax or license 
fee upon this business, and. that that question is now before the court 
for determination, namely, as to the right of the Territory to do that 
under the language in your enabling act which said that you might 
impose other and additional taxes. 

Mr. Wickersham. The enabling act passed by Congress did give 
the legislature authority to pass laws levying other and additional 
license fees and taxes upon the output of the canneries, did it not? 

Mr. Brittox. The act says: 

That all the laws of the United States heretofore passed establishing the 
executive and judicial departments in Alaska shall continue in full force and 
effect until amended or repealed by act of Congress; that except as herein 
provided all laws now in force in Alaska shall continue in full force and effect 
until altered, amended, or repealed by Congress or by the legislature: Provided, 



204 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

That the authority herein granted to the legislature to alter, amend, modify, 
and repeal laws in force in Alaska shall not extend to the customs, internal 
revenue, postal, or other general laws of the United States or to the game, fish, 
and fur-seal laws and laws relating to fur-bearing animals of the United States 
applicable to Alaska, or to the laws of the United States providing for taxes on 
business and trade, or to the act entitled "An act to provide for the construc- 
tion and maintenance of roads, the establishment and maintenance of schools, 
and the care and support of insane persons in the District of Alaska, and for 
other purposes," approved January 27, 1905, and the several acts amendatory 
thereof: Provided further. That this provision shall not operate to prevent the 
legislature from imposing other and additional taxes or licenses. 

Mr. Hadley. Is that taken from the organic act? 

Mr. Britton. Yes; the act of 1912. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was under that last proviso that the legisla- 
ture did levy other and additional license fees upon the fisheries? 

Mr. Britton. I understand it is claimed that the legislature, under 
that last language, may impose these other and additional taxes upon 
the fishery interests. 

Mr. Wickersham. And you understand they did so? 

Mr. Britton. I understand they attempted to do so and that the 
question is now in the courts. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is in the circuit court of appeals of the 
United States in San Francisco, the question being as to whether 
the legislature had authority to do that ? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. You know, do you, that the lower court held 
that the legislature had such power? 

Mr. Britton. I believe the District Court of Alaska held that the 
Territory had that power. 

Mr. Wickersham. The purpose of my inquiry is to ask you. as a 
law}^er, whether the two provisions in sections 21 and 25 will not 
repeal those acts of the legislature and settle the lawsuits between 
your clients and the Territory, although they are now in the United 
States circuit court of appeals for decision, 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Wickersham, I think that is a very close ques- 
tion. I think so far as any authority to collect a tax under either of 
those territorial acts is concerned that it would undoubtedly be de- 
feated, but that this express repeal in 1916 would defeat the right 
of the Territory to collect the tax for 1911 and 1915, under a law 
which the court may hold was valid at the time, is a question which 
is open to doubt. 

The Chairman. We could remedy that if we wanted to. 

Mr. Wickersham. By a saving clause- 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no such clause in the bill and that is 
what I am calling to the attention of the committee. 

Mr. Britton. If it be found that it was not the intention of Con- 
gress to have this tax imposed and this present Congress believed 
that policy was a correct one and that the Territory exceeded its 
authority in seeking to impose such tax, there would be no objection 
to Congress saying that now and repealing it absolutely. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is why I call it to the attention of the 
committee, because the amendment to section 21, which you have 
been handing around, still repeals the act passed by the legislature 
of Alaska and frees these canneries from the taxes which are now 
before the circuit court of appeals. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 205 

Mr. Hardy. What you want is an amendment saying the present 
status of the Territory's rights with regard to past taxes if this law 
should go into effect '. 

Mr. Wi< kkksiia.m. Yes. The canneries of Alaska owe the Terri- 
tory now, under a law which the courts have held to be valid, some- 
thing like $250,000 — mayhe considerably more than that — and if this 
bill should pass in its present form and should pass according to the 
amendment suggested by Mr. Britton it would be a repeal of that 
act. and under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States the lawsuit would fail instantly and they would escape paving 
this $-250,000. 

Mr. Britton. On the other hand, you would not want this com- 
mittee or Congress to validate the act of the Territorial legislature 
imposing these taxes if the courts should finally hold that it did not 
have the power to pass such a law. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; I would. 

Mr. Hadley. Do you mean that you would want Congress to pass 
a retroactive act, because that would be the effect of it? 

The Chairman. If the courts determine that the Territory had no 
right to levy such a tax, of course, it ought not to be imposed ; but, 
on the other hand, if the courts hold that the Territory of Alaska 
had the right to levy the tax, we should not relieve the companies 
from paying the tax up to the time which any law that we may enact 
goes into effect. 

Mr. Wickersham. What I meant to say was that I think these 
people ought to pay a tax in the Territory of Alaska on their prop- 
erty. Of course, this act has now been somewhat modified by the 
statement made by the Secretary of Commerce, but prior to that 
statement this act took away from the Territory of Alaska all of its 
power to levy a tax upon the real and personal property of these 
canneries. 

Mr. Hardy. I think that what the chairman stated w 7 ould be the 
view of a good many of us. If there was no legal right to impose 
this tax, of course, we would not want to make valid that which was 
invalid; but if there was a legal right to impose it, and they have 
exercised that right, we do not want to take away the fruits. 

Mr. Hadley. I do not want to misunderstand the judge, but I 
gathered from one remark made by him, perhaps inadvertently, that 
he would urge upon the committee the passage of a retroeative act. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; what I meant to say was that I wanted the 
law so arranged that these people will pay the same identical pro 
rata tax in Alaska that the ordinary individual pays for the property 
which they have within the Territory of Alaska. 

Mr. Hadley. That is as to the future ; but as to the past you would 
simply preserve the rights, whatever they may be ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Britton. These suits that are now in court do not involve the 
right of the Territory of Alaska to impose a property tax upon these 
companies. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not understand that they do. 

Mr. Britton. They involve the right to impose a per case tax upon 
the output of the canneries. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think that is correct. 



206 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Hadley. That is based on the language of the organic act 
which you just read? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Britton, before the Committee on Terri- 
tories, when I interrogated you as to whom you represented 3^011 said 
you represented the Alaska Packers' Association. 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. I then asked you if you represented the Booth 
Fisheries Co., and you said no. 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. Thereafter you met me and made some state- 
ment with respect to your employment by the Booth Fisheries Co., 
and I wish you would state that again to the committee. 

Mr. Britton. I will if it interests the committee. The only fact 
that the committee, probably, is interested in is that I represent the 
Alaska Packers' Association and no one else. Mr. Wickersham asks 
me about the Booth Fisheries Co. every time I get up ; he asks if I 
represent them, and I tell him no each time, although I jokingly said 
that I might represent them some time in the future, as I understood 
their other representative was not to be here, and that I knew their 
counsel in Chicago very well, and that possibly he might have the 
pleasure of getting an affirmative answer to that question some day. 
But the fact is that I do not represent them. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you had any correspondence with therfc 
about the matter in any way ? 

Mr. Britton. No, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. I only know what you told me about it your- 
self. 

Mr. Edmonds. The Alaska Packers' Association is a corporation, 
it: it not ? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir ; it is, I think, a California corporation. 

Mr. Edmonds. It includes about 25 per cent of the canneries of 
Alaska, does it not ? 

Mr. Britton. I really could not tell. There are 13 canneries in 
operation, I believe ; 13 out of 85. 

Mr. Wickersham. What proportion of the output does it handle ? 

Mr. Bower. I can not answer that offhand. 

Mr. Wickersham. Your reports will show, will they not? 

Mr. Bower. Yes ; our reports will show very clearly. 

Mr. Wickersham. Before the committee takes a recess I want to 
say that I have noticed that the Department of Commerce has 
granted to the Pacific American Fisheries, of South Bellingham, 
Wash., a license to operate a cannery in the Aleutian Islands reserve, 
and that company has established a plant on Unalaska Island, near 
the town of Unalaska, and will begin operations as soon as the fish 
appear. This license was granted at the request of a number of 
Indians living in the reserve, in order to give them an opportunity to 
market their salmon and also to furnish them work nearer home than 
at the salmon canneries on the Alaskan Peninsula, several hundred 
miles away. I wish the committee would ask the Secretary of Com- 
merce what the facts are in regard to that. It is a new method of 
managing the fisheries of Alaska ; it is new to me and it undoubtedly 
will be to the committee. I wish the committee would ask for the 
facts officially, so that they may be here. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 207 

Mr. Bowek. We can readily furnish the facts. 

Mr. Wickersham. If you can find a cop} r of the order and a copy 
of the rules and regulations I wish you would put them in the 
record. 

Mr. Bower. I will be glad to do so. 

(Following are the regulations regarding the Aleutian Islands 
Reservation, the executive order creating the reservation, and the 
permit granted Jan. 15, 191G, to the Pacific American Fisheries 
to engage in fisheries operations within the reservation:) 

[Issued April 13, 1 1 ) 1 4 . 1 

United States Department of Agriculture, 
bureau of biological .survey. 

SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 

Regulations for the Aleutian Islands Reservation, Alaska. 

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Secretary of Commerce by the Executive order of March 3, 1913. and section 
84 of the act of March 4. 1909 (35 Stat, 10SS), and the act of April 21, 1910 
(36 Stat., 327), the following regulations for the administration of the Aleutian 
Islands Reservation, created by said Executive order, are hereby adopted and 
ordered to take effect the 15th clay of March, 1914. 

In testimony whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and caused the seals 
of our respective departments to be affixed this 28th day of February, 1914. 

[seal.] D. F. Houston, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

[seal.] William C. Red-field, 

Secretary of Commerce. 

Regulations for the administration of the Aleutian Islands Reservation, Alaska. 

1. In compliance with existing laws and to carry out the objects of the 
Executive order establishing the reservation, all matters relating to wild birds 
and game, and the propagation of reindeer and fur-bearing animals will be 
under the immediate jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture; all matters 
pertaining specifically to the fisheries and all aquatic life, and to the killing 
of fur-bearing animals will be under the immediate jurisdiction of the De- 
partment of Commerce; and all matters other than those specifically men- 
tioned above will be under the joint jurisdiction of the Departments of Agri- 
culture and Commerce. 

2. Persons residing within the limits of the reservation on March 3. 1913, 
will be permitted to continue to so reside, and to carry on any lawful business 
not interfering with the purposes of the reservation. 

3. Residents of the reservation desiring to engage in commercial fishing, or 
the hunting, trapping, or propagation of fur-bearing animals or game animals, 
must first secure a permit to do so. 

4. Anyone desiring to enter the reservation for the purpose of fishing, hunt- 
ing, trapping, or propagating fur-bearing animals or game animals, or engag- 
ing in commercial fishing, salmon canning, salmon salting, or otherwise curing 
or utilizing fish or other aquatic products, or for the purpose of engaging in 
any lawful business, must first obtain a permit to do so. 

5. Whenever, in the propagation of fur-bearing animals, it shall be found 
to be necessary to kill such of these animals as interfere with the work of the 
Department of Agriculture in this behalf, they may be killed under the super- 
vision of said department, and no permit will be required therefore. 

(5. Fishery permits. — Application for permission to engage in fishing or 
fishery operations should give full information on the following points: Name 
and permanent address of the person or company desiring the permit; charac- 
ter of business proposed, whether fishing, canning, salting, or otherwise curing 
fish or other aquatic products; character and extent of proposed plant and its 



208 ALASKA FISHEKIES. 

location ; method and extent of the fishing proposed, place or places where 
fishing is to be carried on, and when active operations are to begin. 

7. Trapping and hunting perm tfs.— Applications for permission to engage in 
trapping, hunting, or propagating fur-bearing animals or game animals should 
give the name of the person desiring the permit and the island or islands on 
which it is proposed to operate. At present no permits will be issued for 
trapping or hunting fur-bearing animals except to natives of the reservation. 

8. Permits to ship live foxes from the reservation. — For the present no per- 
mits will be issued for capture and shipment of live foxes from the reserva- 
tion, except domestic stock from established fox farms. 

9. Permits to enter the reservation for the purpose of engaging in any busi- 
ness will be granted only when the department concerned is convinced that 
by so doing the objects for which the reservation was established will not be 
endangered thereby. 

10.' Collecting permits.— Permits to enter the reservation for the purpose of 
collecting birds, mammals, or other natural-history specimens for scientific 
purposes will be granted only to properly accredited representatives of the 
United States Government or agents of public museums. 

11. Reindeer and caribou. — The killing of reindeer and caribou on any of the 
islands of the reservation is hereby prohibited, except under special permit. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER. 

It is hereby ordered that all islands of the Aleutian chain, Alaska, including 
Unimak and Sannak Islands on the east, and extending to and including Attu 
Island on the west be, and the same are hereby, reserved and set apart as a 
preserve and breeding ground for native birds, for the propagation of reindeer 
and fur-bearing animals, and for the encouragement and development of the 
fisheries. Jurisdiction over the wild birds and game and the propagation of 
reindeer and fur-bearing animals is hereby placed with the Department of 
Agriculture, and jurisdiction over the fisheries, seals, sea otter, cetaceans, and 
other aquatic species is placed with the Department of Commerce and Labor. 

It is unlawful for any person to kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur 
seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska Territory, except 
under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor ; and it is unlawful for any person to kill any game animals or 
birds in Alaska or ship such animals or birds out of Alaska, except under the 
provisions of law and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the 
Secretary of Agriculture. 

Within the limits of this reservation it is unlawful for any person to hunt, 
trap, capture, willfully disturb, or kill any bird of any kind whatever, or to 
take the eggs of any such bird, except under such rules and regulations as may 
be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Warning is expressly given to all persons not to commit any of the acts 
herein enumerated and which are prohibited by law. 

The establishment of this reservation shall not interfere with the use of the 
islands for lighthouse, military, or naval purposes, or with the extension of the 
work of the Bureau of Education on Unalaska and Atka Islands. 

This reservation to be known as the Aleutian Islands Reservation. 

Wm. H. Taft. 
The White House, March 3, 1913. 



Permit No. 6] January 15, 1916. 

PERMIT TO ENGAGE IN FISHERIES OPERATIONS WITHIN THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS 
RESERVATION, ALASKA. 

Under the provisions of Executive order of March 3, 1913, establishing the 
Aleutian Islands Reservation, and in accordance with the regulations for the 
Aleutian Islands Reservation, Alaska, effective March 15, 1914, the Pacific 
American Fisheries, whose post-office address is South Bellingham, Wash., is 
hereby authorized to construct and operate on Unalaska Island, Alaska, a plant 
for the canning or salting of salmon or other food fishes taken in the vicinity of 
Unalaska Island, and to sell the product thereof, subject to the following con- 
ditions : 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 209 

1. That all work except that requiring skilled mechanics or operatives in 
connection with the taking of tish and their subsequehl preparation for market 
shall he performed by Aleuts or Indians who are residents of the said reserva- 
tion. 

2. That a weekly close season shall he observed from 6 p. m. Saturday to 6 
a. m. Monday of each week, during which time all fishing appliances shall be 
out of the water. 

3. That there shall he no fishing within any salmon stream or within 100 
yards outside the mouth of any such stream. 

4. That no salmon or other food fish shall he taken with any pound net, trap, 
stake net, or other fixed fishing appliance. 

5. That in addition to the restrictions herein imposed the permittee shall 
ohserve all existing- laws and the regulations for the administration of the 
Aleutian Islands Reservation, copies of which are hereto attached, as well as 
those that may he hereafter enacted or promulgated for such purpose. 

6. That failure to observe the stipulations of this permit will automatically 
result in its termination. 

7. That this permit is not transferable and is revocable at any time at the 
pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce. 

William C. Redfield, Secretary. 

(Thereupon a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.) 

AFTER RECESS. 

At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session. 
STATEMENT OF ME. FRANK M. WARREN, PORTLAND, OREG. 

Mr. Warren. I represent the Alaska-Portland Packers' Associa- 
tion, and am also a member of the Association of Pacific Fisheries. 

The principal thing, outside of the discussion that has been carried 
on. that would interest us is the subject of taxation. When we went 
over this measure — that is, when I say "■ we " I mean when the com- 
pany ^which I represent went over it, we considered that as long as 
the feature providing that the taxation schedule of this bill should be 
in lieu of all other license fees and taxes, real and personal, we were 
satisfied that the rate was equitable, but if the suggestion of the 
Secretary of Commerce is adopted that the Territory be still permit- 
ted to levy on real and personal property, then we consider that the 
tax schedule provided is too high. 

I consider that there are two features of taxation that are ap- 
plicable to an industry of this kind. One of them is the question of 
raising revenue for administrative purposes in a Territory or in a 
State or under the Government, and taxation for that purpose should 
properly go on the fixed and personal property of the concern and 
should be based on an assessment and levy the same as all other 
property. That would be the maintenance tax for the purposes of 
the Government. The license tax, I consider, is an entirely different 
proposition, and has its foundation under the provision for the 
preservation and protection of the industry, and is supposed to cover 
the additional revenue that is necessary to care for that particular 
industry over and aboA^e the Government maintenance tax which 
general property should pay. 

I feel that we are in a very unfortunate position in discussing this 
taxation matter, for the reason that the original act which levied 
upon the output of salmon in Alaska was a license tax, and we as- 
sume when the Government levied that tax it took into consideration 



210 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

not only the license and protective feature but also the property and 
administrative feature. Of course, the Territory of Alaska as it 
existed at that time was without any taxation or revenue schedule 
and I assume that they took those two items into consideration. The 
fact that they did not divide the tax and assign part of it to the 
Bureau of Fisheries for protection and part to the Territory of 
Alaska for Government maintenance, I think, had no particular 
significance, inasmuch as the Federal Government at that time was 
bearing the entire expense, and it made little or no difference which 
pocket they took it out of, whether they divided the revenue or 
whether they appropriated from other funds. 

A number of people who have been interested in Alaska have ex- 
pressed themselves as wanting for the fisheries of Alaska no more 
than the States of Oregon and Washington and other Common- 
wealths receive from their fisheries. That is, they want a sufficient 
levy upon the output to take care of the industry, taxing the property 
for the maintenance of government. Under this bill, as it is pro- 
vided, the taxation schedule will raise over and above the license 
features that are provided for in the States of Oregon and Wash- 
ington, according to the rough figures which I have made, something 
between $80,000 and $90,000, which is approximately the amount of 
the real property tax which could be levied against the property of 
these concerns in Alaska on the basis of the organic act. 

The Chairman. What is the rate ? 

Mr. Warren. One per cent of the assessed valuation, as I under- 
stand. 

Mr. Britton. Outside of the incorporated towns. 

Mr. Wickersham. And 2 per cent inside. 

Mr. Hadley. That is the limit? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. Assuming that the valuation of the plants 
is something like $9,000,000, it would amount to about $90,000.' 

Mr. Edmonds. The real estate tax ? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. The property tax properly goes for Gov- 
ernment maintenance and the license tax goes for the industry. This 
license rate would raise approximately $80,000 or $90,000 over and 
above what the rate in Oregon and Washington would raise. 

Mr. Wickersham. What is the output in Oregon of the salmon 
fisheries on which you base that statement? 

Mr. Warren. It is divided into several districts. The output of 
the Columbia Eiver district for both Oregon and Washington — I 
can only give it, as a matter of fact, roughly — last year the output, 
reduced to the case basis, was about 670.000 cases for the Columbia 
Eiver. That does not mean that it all went into cans, but that is 
assuming that the fish caught on the river be reduced to a case basis 
it would amount approximately to that number. Of that number a 
little less than half is in the State of Washington and a little more 
than half in the State of Oregon. 

Mr. Wickersham. On that basis the tax levy for Oregon 

Mr. Warren (interposing). I did not say upon that basis. I said, 
taking the Oregon and Washington rate per case, and applying that 
rate per case to Alaska, would mean that the taxation schedule pro- 
vided in this bill would raise something like $90,000 more than if 
the Washington and Oregon rate were applied to it. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 211 

Mr. Wickeesham. You say that the per case output of Oregon 
was about 670,000 cases? 

Mr. Warren. The case output of the Columbia River was equiva- 
lent to about 070,000 cases. 

Mr. Wickeesham. What was the coastal Oregon output? 

Mr. Warben. I think last year somewhere in the neighborhood of 
4,000.000 pounds; perhaps a little more. I can not tell what it was 
in cases. 

Mr. Wickersham. The case output was, say, 1,000.000 cases? 

Mr. Warren. Xo, sir; nothing like that. 

Mr. Wickersham. And yet the taxation feature would raise 
within $90,000? 

Mr. Warren. If, instead of applying the rate per case provided 
in this bill, you apply the rate per case that is levied in Oregon and 
Washington to the output of Alaska, it would raise approximately 
$90,000 less than the schedule provided in this bill. 

Mr. Wickersham. Can you state clearly what the per case output 
of Oregon is? 

Mr. Warren. That has nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Wickersham. The total output of all canned salmon on the 
Pacific coast gives Oregon about 16 per cent and Alaska about 45 
per cent? 

Mr. Warren. I can not say. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is all, as a matter of fact, in the report of 
the Bureau of Fisheries? 

Mr. Warren. I do not know how the bureau segregates it. 

Mr. Wickersham. I only want to call attention to the fact that it 
is 16 per cent in Oregon. 

Mr. Warren. I did not say that. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am saying it. 

Mr. Warren. The revenue from district No. 1 on the Columbia 
River was about $33,000. 

Mr. Curry. The rate in Oregon is 2 cents ? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir; for the equivalent of red grade of salmon. 

Mr. Currv. And in Alaska 4 cents? 

Mr. W t arren. Yes, sir; at present. At that time, I assume, the 
4 cents was supposed to cover both the license rate, which is the pro- 
tective rate, and also an equivalent of the property rate. In other 
words, it was at that time levied with a view to placing the people 
operating in Alaska on approximately the same basis as people oper- 
ating in other sections of the country. 

Mr. Curry. Still, in Alaska you pay twice as much as they pay in 
Oregon ? 

Mr. Warren. I would not say that. We pay a property tax in 
Oregon in addition to the per case basis. 

Mr. Wickersham. You do not pay the property tax in Alaska ? 

Mr. Warren. We have not heretofore. 

Mr. Curry. The property tax and output tax in Oregon amount 
to just about the same as the case tax does in Alaska? 

Mr. Warren. Very close. 

Mr. Curry. And that amounts in' dollars and cents to about 4 
cents a case? 



212 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Warren. In amount per case approximately on similar grades. 

Mr. Hadley. The case tax amounts to about the same thing as all 
the taxes in Alaska under the present system ? 

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. Because the case tax embodies it all. 

Mr. Britton. The failure of the Alaska people to pay a property 
tax was not through any disinclination on their part to pay it? 

Mr. Warren. No, sir. 

Mr. Britton. And they are perfectly willing to pay it if it is 
assessed ? 

Mr. Warren. They are perfectly willing. As I understand, the 
Bureau of Fisheries, when they were formulating this bill, took into 
consideration the fact that the people of Alaska were complaining — 
at least, that is my understanding — that the property tax was rather 
difficult to take care of in that section on account of the widely scat- 
tered condition of the plants. The department recognized that fea- 
ture, and were willing to include it in their levy in order to assist 
the Territorial government of Alaska ; but if this is going to give 
rise to misunderstanding and trouble as to the question of an equita- 
ble assessment, it seems to me that we should go back and put it 
down on a 'fair and square basis, as to what should be for Territorial 
maintenance, and how paid, and what should be for the protection of 
the industry, and how paid. On that basis I think it would be well 
to amend section 21 as suggested here and provide that the mainte- 
nance tax or the Government maintenance revenue which the fish- 
eries of Alaska should pa}^ should be based on their property and 
assessed by the Territory of Alaska, and that should be the sole and 
onty revenue which the Territory should receive from the fisheries 
for maintenance purposes. As long as the Federal Government is 
going to maintain and look after the hatcheries, the policing and 
care of the industry, then the Federal Government should levy the 
license fee for protection in such amount as may be necessary. 

I have been in touch with the legislation of Washington and 
Oregon for almost 20 years directly, and indirectly for a longer 
period than that. The rates they have finally established in those 
States have been the result of considerable study and a great deal 
of experience in the matter of patrol work and all of the incidental 
expenses that are necessary to keep up and take care of and look 
after an industry of this kind. I consider that the rates which have 
been applied in those States are fair and equitable rates to establish 
or to place on the industry for its protection and preservation, and I 
would suggest that the bill be amended so as to write into the license 
section section 51 of the Washington law, which provides the levy 
on canned salmon of the red grade shall be 2 cents a case and all other 
grades 1 cent a case, exactly as it is there. That will raise approxi- 
mately $60,000, as against about $140,000, taking as a basis an average 
of the three years 1912, 1913, and 1914. 

Mr. Edmonds. You do not pay 4 cents on tlie sockeye or blueback 
salmon ? 

Mr. Warren. No, sir : but there is a property tax levied. The red 
rate covers the sockeye and the king. 

Mr. Edmonds. Is not the king salmon pink? 

Mr. Warren. No, sir; the king salmon is the same as the tyee 
salmon. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 213 

I have the Washington law. Section 51 of the "Washington law 
provides for a tax of 2 cents per case for each case of steelhead. blue- 
back, quinnat, or sockeye salmon — those terms, except steelhead. 
are practically synonymous with the red salmon, names for differ- 
ent localities — and all other grades of salmon they place on the same 
basis at the rate of 1 cent a case. 

I would also include in the same provision the year per thousand 
tax that the State of "Washington has. That would raise approxi- 
mately the same amount that Mr. Bower reported this bill would 
raise; practically no change in that. As I estimate it. the total reve- 
nue from those amendments would be approximately $132,000, or 
somewhere in that neighborhood. 

Mr. Hadley. Based on the average of the last three years? 

Mr. "Warren. No, sir; my figures are for the vears 1912, 1013, 
and 1911. 

Mr. Edmonds. That would be the license revenue ? 

Mr. "Warren. Yes, sir; $132,000. I believe that that ought to go 
entirely to the Bureau of Fisheries for their work. That that amount 
is sufficient I think is shown by the experiences of Oregon and "Wash- 
ington in their work and also by the fact that the Bureau of Fish- 
eries, when they undertook to subdivide the revenue under this bill, 
only estimated something between $110,000 and $115,000, and this 
would give them about $15,000 more than that. This division would 
absolutely settle the question as to double taxation and double juris- 
diction and would say that the Federal Government will take care 
of the license and protection, and that the Territory of Alaska will 
look after its revenue in the same way that every other State and 
Territory looks after its revenue. 

Mr. "Wickersham. Let me call your attention to the fact that this 
bill would levy a tax on the independent fisherman who lives in 
Alaska. Would not he be subject to tax upon his property, his nets, 
boats, etc., on shore? 

Mr. Warren. So would the others. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Warren. Is not a net on shore personal property? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Warren. Then it would be taxed? 

Mr. Wickersham. That is what I am trying to get at. 

Mr. Warren. It would be taxed whether a resident or not a resi- 
dent, because he does not pack them back and forth. He takes them 
into Alaska and they are taxable there. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is what I want to get clearly before the 
committee. 

Mr. Warren. I think it would be taxable under the real-and- 
personal-property tax. 

Mr. Edmonds. Is not the business in Alaska much more profitable 
than along the Columbia River? 

Mr. Warren. Xo. sir. I think the hearings of 1912, that is my 
impression, showed that. I know that in the case of our concern up 
to 1912 we only made about 4 per cent on our enterprise — that is, 
from 1901 to 1912. 

Mr. I^dmonds. What have you made since 1912? 

Mr. Warren. We have done better than that. We have had war 
prices the last two years. 



214 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Edmonds. Since 1910? 

Mr. Warren. No, sir. We did not do especially well in 1910; it 
was not a very good year. You see, it depends very largely in Alaska 
on the amount of business that you get in any particular locality. 
You can go up there any year with the highest kind of prices and 
not secure the output and you would make a financial failure out 
of it. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Alaska Packers' Association, for whom 
Mr. Britton appears, issues an annual statement which is very inter- 
esting, and I should like to have him, if he will, file a copy with the 
committee. 

Mr. Britton. I shall be very glad to do so. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is not long and it shows the exact situation. 

The Chairman. He can file the statement and, if it is not too long., 
we will put it in the record. 

TWENTY-THIED ANNUAL REPORT, ALASKA PACKERS' ASSOCIATION, 1915. 

San Francisco, January 18, 1916. 
To the stockholders of the Alaska Packers' Association: 

On behalf of the board of directors of this corporation I submit the following 
report of the business of the association for the year 1915 : 

Capitalization. — The capitalization of the company remains the same, viz, 
$7,500,000 authorized capital, divided into 75,000 shares of the par value of $100 
each. The present issue is 57,508 shares, leaving 17,492 shares in the treasury of 
the company. 

Auditing. — In accordance with the usual custom, all of the books, accounts, 
and vouchers of the association were examined, checked, and audited by the 
auditor, Mr. W. W. Armstrong, who has reported as follows : 

San Francisco, January 5, 1916. 
To the president and board of directors of the Alaska Packers' Association. 

Gentlemen : Since my last annual report my duties as general auditor of the 
association have been as follows : 

1. Counting the cash daily, proving the revolving fund on hand. 

2. Checking daily financial statement. 

3. Checking bank accounts monthly. 

4. Checking vouchers for all cash disbursed during the year. 

5. Auditing cashier's and voucher clerk's bills for all purchases and payments, 
being a check upon cashier, purchasing and shipping departments for goods 
ordered, delivered, priced, calculated, and approved. 

6. Checking postings of controlling and subsidiary ledgers with their auxiliary 
books, journals, voucher journal, and cash book. 

7. Checking salmon journal with salmon invoices. 

8. Checking shipping department's books, viz, salmon stock book with ware- 
house orders ; salmon sales book with invoices, 

9. Checking final reports of salmon discharged with inward manifests. 

10. Recording all stock transferred during the year as per stock-transfer 
journal and ledger, outstanding shares being 57,508. 

All of the foregoing work I have the honor to report as being correct. 
Respectfully, 

W. W. Armstrong, Auditor. 

The accounts have also been audited by Price, Water house & Co., certified 
public accountants, and their certificate is attached. 

Insurance accounts. — The association carries its own insurance on buildings, 
wharves, machinery, equipments, furniture, and on product in the course of 
manufacture and finished in its own plants ; also on all floating property and on 
cargoes of box shooks, lumber, and coal. All up and down general cargoes are 
insured at full values, and salmon and merchandise stored in warehouses in San 
Francisco at about one-half their values. 

Insurance funds. — At the close of 1914 the fund showed a credit of $2,004,- 
931.47, and earned $501,497.85 for 1915. The amounts charged for losses and ex- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 215 

penses aggregate $119,199.74. The Insurance fund now amounts to $2,387,229.58; 
of this $2,180,425 are invested in bonds. 

Pack. — The association's pack of salmon for the season was as follows: 

Cases. 

Sockeye 9,461 

.Red 077,074 

Kins 25, 931 

( Joho ,___ 20. 939 

Pink 240,427 

Chum 1_ 50,208 



Total 1, 024, 040 



Salt salmon (barrels) 327 

Markets. — During 1915 the general markets for canned salmon have been 
very irregular. The stupendous war has disarranged the trade, the transpor- 
tation and the finances of the world. Lack of transportation facilities, almost- 
prohibitive freight and exchange rates, together with the closing of the Panama 
Canal, have seriously interfered with the prompt and economic distribution of 
the pack. Contrary to general impression, none of the Governments of the 
warring nations have purchased canned salmon in large quantities. Only to 
Australasia have the salmon shipments been made normally and in usual 
quantities. 

Almost before the results of the season's operations were known, prices of 
the lower grades of salmon became badly demoralized. Goods of these quali- 
ties were sold regardless of cost, a number of salmon concerns have been 
forced into liquidation and many others have lost heavily. Our company has 
not reduced its opening prices, and as a result of having made early and large 
sea transportation arrangements has been able to distribute considerable of 
its output at satisfactory prices. 

The failure of the salmon runs at several of our more important stations 
has reduced the 1915 pack in comparison with those of the previous four years, 
and this, together with the above-mentioned disturbing elements, have cur- 
tailed the profit on the year's business. 
Plants. — The following canneries were operated : 

Alaska 14 

Nushagak., ,: 2 

Kvichak 2 

Naknek v 3 

Egegak 1 

Chignik , 1 

Alitak ^l 1 

Karluk 1 

Cook Inlet 1 

Fprt Wrangell 1 

Loring 1 

Puget Sound 2 

Semiahmoo 1 

Anacortes 1 

Total 1G 

Current repairs, replacements, and betterments to plants have been made at 
a cost of .$219,306.77. There has been written off from plants on account of 
depreciation .$102,475. The present appraised value of plants is .$4,119,126.74. 

Fleet.- — The launches Sparrow and Swift have been built at a cost of 
$16,381.02. The steamer Sayak and launch Herbert have been dismantled. 

There has been expended for improvements and repairs to the fleet the 
amount of $149,557.30. There has been written off from fleet values for de- 
preciation the sum of $101,881.02, leaving the present appraised value of the 
fleet, .$1,255,750. 

The association now owns 9 ships, 12 barks, 1 barkentine, 3 schooners, and 
02 steamers and launches, a total of 87 vessels. 

Medical stations. — The association maintains six medical stations in Alaska. 
All employees and all natives are given free medical treatment and medicines. 

46232— pt 3—16 1 



216 ALASKA FISHEEIES. 

Expenditures in Almka. — The policy of the association to assist in the de- 
velopment of Alaska has been continued-, and expenditures exceeding $250,000 
for the year were made in the territory. 

Salmon hatcheries. — The two salmon hatcheries of the association have con- 
tinned operations. During 1915 from the 30,240,000 red salmon eggs taken in 1914 
at the Karluk salmon hatchery, 27,704,000 fry were liberated and 41,135,000 
red salmon eggs were taken. From the 22,500,000 red salmon- eggs taken at 
the Fortmanu salmon hatchery in 1914, 20,820,000 fry were liberated and 26,- 
520,000 red salmon eggs were taken in 1915. 

In Alaska the Government continued operating large salmon hatcheries on 
McDonald Lake and at Litnik, Afognak Island. 

Physical condition of plants and fleet. — The canneries, hatcheries, ship yard, 
and fleet of the association have all been kept in a very high-class condition, 
and more than fully equipped to meet all demands on them. Each cannery has 
machine and general repair shops ; every cannery district is provided with 
shipways to haul out vessels ; large stocks of material, reserve machinery and 
other equipments are kept on hand to provide for all probable contingencies. 

The ship yard at Alameda is equipped with a general wood-working plant, 
machine shop, and other appliances sufficient to make all but the larger im-r 
provements and repairs to vessels and to build and repair cannery machinery. 

Bonded indebtedness. — During the year 1915, $216,000 of the bonds of the 
association were redeemed and canceled, reducing the bonded indebtedness to 
$558,000. 

Profits for the year. — The insurance fund has increased $382,298.11. The 
profits for 1915 were $559,299.04. 

Dividends. — Qnarterlv dividends of $1.50 per share have been paid during 
1915. 

For the board of directors : 

Henry F. Fortmann, President. 



Price, Waterhovse & Co., 
San Francisco, January 12, 1916. 
To the stockholders of the Alaslca l'tickers' Association, San Francisco, Cat.: 

We hereby certify that we have examined the books of the Alaska Packers' 
Association for the year ending December 31, 1915, and that the balance sheet 
is correctly prepared therefrom, and shows the true financial conditions of the 
company at that date. 

We have satisfied ourselves that the additions to plant and fleet accounts 
during the year are in order, and that reasonable provision lias been made for 
depreciation, all current repairs and replacements having been charged to 
operating cost. 

We have also satisfied ourselves that the inventories have been taken at San 
Francisco cost prices, and that full provision has been made for doubtful 
accounts receivable, and for all ascertainable liabilities. 

The securities for the insurance-fund investments were exhibited to us on 
December 30, 1915. 

Price, Waterhouse & Co. 



Annual statement Alaska Packers' Association, Year $915. 

ASSETS. 

Canneries, fleet, etc $5, 374, 876. 74 

Inventories 2, 965, 324. f>.> 

Insurance-fund investments : 2, ISO, 425. 00 

Accounts receivable 43, 54o. 99 

Cash on hand 136,484.81 

$10, 700, 657. 44 

LIABILITIES. 

Capital stock $5, 750, S00. 00 

Bonds 558, 000. 00 

Current indebtedness 704, 518. 94 

Insurance fund 2, 387, 229. 58 

Surplus 1, 300, 108. 92 

$10, 700, 657. 44 

A. K. Tichekor, Secretary. 
San Francisco, December 31, 1915. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 217 

Mr. Hadley. Does that segregate the Alaska and Paget Sound 
business? 

Mr. Wu kersiiam. They have only one cannery on Puget Sound. 
I am not so sure that it does segregate them. 

Mr. Edmonds. Do not the canneries in Alaska get the fish cheaper 
than in Puget Sound? 

Mr. Warren. Not relatively. I speak from our standpoint. We 
are located on Bristol Ba} r . While you may not pay as much per 
fish right there to the fisherman on the piece basis you must take 
into consideration that you take those men up there, you have them 
under employ for five months while they are engaged in fishing only 
two months, and furnish them with board and with all the gear 
they use and transportation back and forth. When you figure all 
that into the cost, which properly belongs in the cost, the price 
is about as high. In fact, I have seen times when you could buy 
fish cheaper on the Sound than in Alaska. 

Mr. Edmonds. Do most of the canneries do their own fishing? 

Mr. Warren. In our case we practically do our own fishing. We 
take our own fishermen. We have few traps. We use gill nets al- 
most entirely. 

Mr. Edmonds. The English down below do mostly contract fish- 
ing? 

Mr. Warren. I know comparatively little about the contract work 
in southeastern Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. Does your company do any fishing with launches? 

Mr. Warren. Purse-seine fishing? 

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Warren. No, sir: we do not. 

Mr. Hadley. In your estimate on the case basis you show a sur- 
plus of $15,000 above what? 

Mr. Warren. Above what the bureau would get out of this bill. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you prepared any statement of figures 
to show that? 

Mr. Warren. I can give you rough figures. The average pack 
for those years was 135,184 cases of cohoes, 522,886 cases of chums, 
1,231,701 cases of pinks, 44,975 cases of kings, and 2,023,403 cases 
of reds. Applying the Sound rates, if my figures are correct, it 
would mean $59,845.52. Then, taking the number of fish which went 
to make up that pack, the revenue was $50,002,32, applying the 
rates in this bill. In addition to those figures should be added part 
of the figures that Mr. Bower spoke of, which, I think, amounted to 
something like $45,000. 

Mr. Bower. Approximately $30,000, and $13,000 for miscellaneous. 

Mr. Warren. About $30,000 more, excluding miscellaneous. That 
would make up the amount, roughly speaking, that I figured on. 

Mr. Hadley. Does the estimate of expenditures of the department 
include such expense as necessary by reason of taking over the 
hatcheries? 

Mr. Warren. It provides that the exemption would continue to 
exist until these hatcheries were automatically paid for so it would 
only affect the revenue that comes from the owners of the hatcheries 
themselves. This amount would be reduced by that much yearly. 

Mr. Curry. Were the hatchery locations made by the Government 
or the companies? 



218 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Warren. I can not say. 

Mr. Bower. They were selected by the companies and then ap- 
proved by the Government. That was before my time, but I think 
the records will bear me out in that. 

Mr. Curry. Most of them are unfortunately located. 

Mr. Farren. Outside of the taxation features of the bill, I think 
the provisions are as good as you could work into any bill of the 
kind. 

Mr. Hadlet. You are familiar with those provisions of the bill 
and the Washington and Oregon laws? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadlet. Is your statement based upon observation? 

Mr. Warren. On the way the laws haA^e worked out. I would not 
agree with everything in there, but I do not believe that you could 
do any better. 

Mr. Wickersham. Where do you live, Mr. Warren? 

Mr. Warren. In Portland, Oreg. 

Mr. Wickersham. You have lived there a great many years ? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. You have been connected with the fishery busi- 
ness for a great many years? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. With what company? 

Mr. Warren. The Alaska-Portland Packers' Association. 

Mr. Wickersham. What was your pack last year in Alaska ? 

Mr. Warren. I would have to refer to that. 

Mr. Wickersham. Approximately? 

Mr. Warren. Between 85,000 and 90,000. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was your brother who was down here at the 
other hearing? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. You spoke about the Pacific Fishermen's Asso- 
ciation. What is that? 

Mr. Warren. That is an association of people who are interested 
in the fishing business of all kinds. They take a general interest in 
the business. 

Mr. Wickersham. How long have you been down here this 
winter ? 

Mr. Warren. I was here in December for some little time. I have 
been here a couple of months this time. 

Mr. Wickersham. Who pays your expenses? 

Mr. Warren. I pay my own expenses. 

Mr. Wickersham. Does your company pay your expenses? 

Mr. Warren. That is my company. 

Mr. Wickersham. Does the Pacific Fishermen's Association have 
anvthing to do with your expenses? 

Mr. Warren. The Pacific Fishermen's Association has nothing to 
do with my expenses at all. 

Mr. Edmonds. I think he said that he did not represent that asso- 
ciation. 

Mr. Warren. Only in an indirect way, as I am a member inter- 
ested in the work it is doing. 

Mr. Britton. I do not like to object, but I do not see how these 
questions are going to enlighten the committee in their work. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 219 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you resent them? 

The Ciiairmax. It only shows the interest of the witness. 

Mr. Curry. The Constitution gives the full right to citizens to 
appear before Congress and to petition Congress, and because he 
comes here to represent his own interests, I do not think we are going 
to try to abridge or nullify the Constitution to prevent it. I think he 
has the constitutional right to appear before this committee. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many trap-site locations have you? 

Mr. Warren. Three. 

Mr. Wickersham. Where are they located? 

Mr. Warrex. They are on the bank of the Nushagak River, just 
above what is known as Coffee Point. 

Mr. Wickersham. The point where your company has been fishing 
heretofore ? 

Mr. Warrex. Well, we have had traps in there for — I do not knoAV 
for just how many j^ears, but quite a number of years. 

Mr. Wickersham. And they cover those exact traps that you have 
heretofore operated ? 

Mr. Warrex. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. And you do not conflict with any other people 
in any way? 

Mr. Warrex. No. sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further, gentlemen? 

Mr. Brittox. Mr. Chairman, we are just here now to aid the com- 
mittee in giving any information that we can furnish. 

Mr. Curry. Mr. Reynolds, do you wish to say something about 
whale fishing? 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. J. J. REYNOLDS, OF SEATTLE, WASH. 

Capt. Reyxolds. I have not come prepared with any facts rela- 
tive to the whaling industry, but I might state that I followed that 
industry for several years, and it has occurred to me that if the 
department is going to make any regulations relative to the whaling 
industry that they ought to confine them to the different species of 
the whale. The bowhead whale has furnished bone for many years, 
but that whale is caught almost exclusively outside of the Federal 
jurisdiction; the sperm whale and the right whale likewise. It 
seems to me it would be an easy matter for the department to 
define the whales that they intend to cover by regulation. I believe 
they are principally finbacks, sulphur-bottoms, and humpbacks 
which they are now catching and manufacturing into fertilizer. 

I merely state this for the benefit of Mr. Curry, who has asked 
me to state what I know about the whaling industry. I would be 
very glad to prepare further facts for this committee if it should 
desire them. 

The Chairman. Of course we would like to make the hearings on 
this subject as full and complete as we possibly can. 

Mr. Edmonds. These whales that are outside the limits are brought 
in and tried out? 

Capt. Reyxolds. Yes ; that is my understanding, when the whaling 
is carried on from a shore station; otherwise they are tried out 
aboard ship and taken to ports in the United States. 



220 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. They are not brought into port there ? 

Capt. Reynolds. They are brought into port after the oil is tried 
out, the whalebone secured, and ready for market. 
. Mr. Jones. Not all of those whales are manufactured on ship- 
board ? 

Capt. Reynolds. I think all of the bowheads are, and occasionally 
they do get a sperm whale in the north Pacific, but they are very 
scarce. 

Mr. Jones. Fifteen or eighteen sperm whales were brought into 
Port Armstrong, I understand, and I saw three of theim They were 
brought there and manufactured into oil and fertilizer < 

Mr. Bower. The bureau's record shows that 43 sperm whales were 
utilized in the shore fisheries in 1914 in Alaska. 

Capt. Reynolds. As against possibly 600 of the other species. 

Mr. Bower. The total number was 482. 

Capt. Reynolds. In both stations. 

Mr. Bower. Yes; the total utilization of whales at the Alaskan 
stations in 1914 was 482, and of those 43 were sperms. 

Capt. Reynolds. The sperm whale is usually caught for its valu- 
able oil. 

Mr. Bower. It is the most valuable of the species used at the shore 
stations. 

Mr. Curry. Do you know what percentage of the whales are caught 
by American whalers? 

Capt. Reynolds. Mr. Bower has those records. 

Mr. Bower. I think they were all caught by American registered 
vessels. 

Mr. Curry. Have you any record of those caught on the Siberian 
shores by the Japanese? 

Mr. Bower. I do not know that any records are available, but it 
might be possible to procure them in a short time. All of those 
brought ashore at shore stations in Alaska are caught by American 
vessels. 

Mr. Curry. I know that, but I am not talking about Alaska alone ; 
I am talking about the northern Pacific. I would like to know the 
percentage caught by American whalers and the percentage caught 
by other whalers^ like the British, the Norwegian, and the Japanese 
whalers. 

Mr. Wickersham. You mean along the Canadian coast? 

Mr. Curry. Yes ; and on all coasts, and on the north Pacific and in 
the Arctic. 

Mr. Bower. I say, there are no records immediately available. 

Mr. Edmonds. What is the condition of the whale business up 
there? Is it gradually dying out? 

Capt. Reynolds. To what species do you refer ? 

Mr. Edmonds. Any kind. 

Capt. Reynolds. The bowhead whale, I understand, has been de- 
pleted to a considerable extent, and also the right whale. This is a 
whale that contains bone in a like quantity with the boAvhead. It is 
hunted both in Alaska and in southern waters. 

The Chairman. Are they gradually disappearing? 
Capt. Reynolds. They have disappeared very materially, necessi- 
tating that vessels go up into the Arctic and locate at the mouth of 
the Mackenzie and at Herschel Island for a period of two or three 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 221 

years in order to get what they formerly caught in one year. Those 
vessels are reduced to about three or four, whereas during the days 
that 1 was in the business there were 00 or 65 vessels engaged in the 
whaling industry. 

The Chairman. The only way to protect the industry and prevent 
depletion would be by international agreement? 

Capt. Reynolds. Positively. Most of our whales were caught in 
the Gulf of Anadir, on the Siberian coast, along Indian Point 
and East Cape, and that is all on the other side of the international 
boundary line ; then no more whales were procured until we got into 
the Arctic Circle. We hunt the sperm whale as far south as Cape 
Horn, around the Galapagos Group, the Marshall Group, and Society 
Islands. So that the whaling industry covers almost the entire globe. 

Mr. Greene. Mr. Reynolds spoke of having some information 
relating to the whaling industry, and I think it would be well to have 
him file that. 

Capt. Reynolds. I have no further information relative to the 
whaling industry, but I am advised that a great many whales are 
taken south of the Aleutian Group. The method of taking those 
whales is to shoot them and flag them. Then they go after others. 

The Chairman. Do they sink? 

Capt. Reynolds. They might sink or if the weather conditions are 
such that on their return it is impossible to locate them. It is pretty 
hard to locate a dead whale in rough water, especially from a small 
vessel. On a regular whale ship they have what is called the crow's 
nest, and that gives an elevation from which you can find them at a 
great distance. But the small whalers are not fitted out in that way. 

Mr. Curry. Could that system of whaling be stopped except 
through an international agreement? 

Capt. Reynolds. I think not ; it will positively have to be through 
an international agreement, for the reason that a good many of those 
whales, I think the majority of them, are caught on the high seas. 

Mr. Curry. Outside of the jurisdiction of the United States en- 
tirely ? 

Capt. Reynolds. Yes, sir. I might safely say that I have never 
taken a whale within the 3-mile limit. 

The Chairman. What about the habits of the whales? Where do 
they breed? 

Capt. Reynolds. The bowhead whale breeds in the Arctic, and we 
find there many of the cows running with calves. The humpback 
and other species of noncommercial varieties breed in the waters ad- 
jacent to the Aleutian Group, where many of them are found. 

Mr. Curry. If you kill the cow, of course, the calf dies? 

Capt. Reynolds. I am inclined to believe that the calf would die; 
yes. The calf is a pretty large whale when it is termed a calf. 

Mr. Edmonds. Is there anything you can suggest by which we can 
aid the industry, outside of an international agreement? 

Capt. Reynolds. No; I do not believe so. I have given the situa- 
tion at this time much study. I really thought very little about it 
until I heard Mr. Walsh make his statement covering the matter 
and protesting against whales being included in this bill. I agree 
with Mr. Walsh that it would be a very hard matter to regulate the 
whaling industry, except that part carried on by shore stations. 



222 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection to a requirement that those 
who bring whales into Alaskan ports and there convert the carcasses 
into fertilizer, blubber, and oil, shall pay a reasonable tax for the 
oil output? 

Capt. Reynolds. I think this bill covers that. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection to that? 

Capt. Reynolds. No; there is no objection, and no objection is 
made by the people engaged in that industry. I brought the matter 
to their attention and they seemed very well satisfied with the tax, 
as stipulated in the bill. 

Mr. Cijrry. Do you know who owns those few whalers? 

Capt. Reynolds. The Pacific Sea Products Co. operates a plant 
on Akutan Island. 

Mr. Bower. And the United States Whaling Co. operates one. 

Capt. Reynolds. They operate a plant at Port Armstrong. 

Mr. Bower. One is in southeast Alaska and the other is in far 
western Alaska, 1,500 miles away. The Port Armstrong plant is 
in southeastern Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you been interested at any time in the 
salmon fisheries or other fisheries? 

Capt. Reynolds. I have been interested in the salmon fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. For how long ? 

Capt. Reynolds. I have been interested on my own account for a 
couple of years, having operated a cannery on the coast of Oregon. 
I have followed the salmon fisheries since 1900. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you represent any Alaska cannery except 
on your own account? 

Capt. Reynolds. I do not, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. None whatever? 

Capt. Reynolds. None whatever. 

Mr. Wickersham. You have been here all winter? 

Capt. Reynolds. I have not. 

Mr. Wickersham. How long have you been here? 

Capt. Reynolds. I have been here a little less than three months. 

Mr. Wickersham. You have been taking a great deal of interest 
in this legislation? 

Capt. Reynolds. I have taken a great interest in it; yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Why? 

Capt. Reynolds. For the reason that I believe this valuable in- 
dustry should have legislation which will protect and perpetuate it. 
For that reason I am deeply interested in it. 

STATEMENT OF MR. H. C. STRONG, OF KETCHIKAN, ALASKA. 

Mr. Strong. I have views on the question of the taxation of can- 
neries 

The Chairman (interposing). Where is your home? 

Mr. Strong. Ketchikan, Alaska. As I say, I have views as to the 
assessment and collection of taxes which differ so much from all the 
expressions I have heard here that I almost hesitate to say an} T thing. 
But I can not see the necessity or the good of taking three bites at 
the fishing industry when it can all be done in one. What I mean is 
this : I believe that there should be a tax laid on the pack to cover 
the raw fish, the canned product, and the property tax. It can all 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 223 

be covered in one assessment. It will simplify things and save much 
trouble in Alaska. In the first place, to assess the raw product means 
assessing the fisherman. I can see where it will lead to lots of trouble 
in southeastern Alaska where. I think, at least two-thirds of the fish- 
ing- business is done, and 50 per cent of the seine fishing is done by the 
natives. To make an assessment against such fishing, and even that 
which is done by the white men, would cause a great deal of trouble, 
because an assessment would have to be made against each fishing 
crew, and the personnel of those crews is changing pretty nearly 
every week. They fall out, and during a season there may be many 
changes made. To settle this taxation proposition among them would 
cause trouble. Then, again, at the end of the year to have every fish- 
erman or every crew make a report of the fish they have caught and 
settle the assessment that is to be made against them would cause no 
end of trouble. It might work all right, but I can see a chance for 
lots of trouble. It does seem to me that the assessment made against 
the canners should cover the whole proposition, and as to the fish 
shipped out fresh, the tax on them can very easily be collected through 
the collector of customs at the post where the cargo is cleared. It 
would be a simple thing. Then, going to the property assessment; 
with the canneries scattered all over the country, as they are, I have 
thought: How would we get at it to assess that property and do it 
intelligently? There is the problem, and it might as well be settled 
right here at one time. 

The Chairman. And apportion the tax? 

Mr. Strong. That is my idea. I may be wrong, but I am stating 
my views. 

The Chairman. You are interested in the canning business, are 
you not? 

Mr. Strong. In a small way, yes ; I am interested in two canneries, 
but I am interested in other lines of more importance to me. My idea 
is not to put any hardships on the canning business in anyway. 

Mr. Hadley. Under that method would it not result in the can- 
ners paying the entire tax for the benefit of all those who derive a 
living from the fishing business? In other words, the man who goes 
out and catches the fish to sell would be relieved of the tax and the 
canner would have to pay all of it? 

Mr. Strong. The canner would only pay a tax on the fish that 
he canned. 

Mr. Hadley. But the tax would have to be sufficient to maintain 
the industry, and it would not make any difference whether it was 
segregated or not. So much money would have to be produced, and 
you propose that the canner shall pay it all. In our State the theory 
is that everybody must pay a just share of the taxes. 

Mr. Strong. But you have a different class of people to deal with 
than we have in Alaska. 

Mr. Hadley. I imagine you have good people in Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes. 

Mr. Hadley. I am endeavoring to ascertain whether that is your 
theory or not, because that seems to be the effect of your statement. 
That is true, is it not? 

Mr. Strong. Yes. 

Mr. Hadley. Would the entire tax be paid by the canner, no 
matter who is engaged in the industry ( 



224 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Strong. Yes; but the tax would not be any more, the tax 
would be no greater on the canner. 

The Chairman. Is it your idea that if A brings in 1,000 fish you 
pay him the value of those fish less the tax? 

Mr. Strong. Well, it may be figured that way, but if the fisherman 
is paying the tax he is going to get just that much more from the 
canner, that is true ; the product has got to pay the tax, and why not 
collect it from one man instead of getting it in three different ways? 
I think that in Alaska, with the country scattered as it is, we ought 
to simplify everything as much as we can. This is not working any 
hardship on the canner in any way ; it is only paying a tax on the 
fish he packs. Possibly the same fishing crew which sells fish to the 
canner would sell a portion of their catch for shipment as fresh fish, 
and the tax on that would be collected through the collector of 
customs from either the shipper or carrier. 

Mr. Hadley. But the gross tax must be sufficient to maintain the 
entire industry, irrespective of what the rate may be. Now, do you 
propose that one class of people shall pay all of that and that no 
other class shall share any part of it? 

Mr. Strong. The canner would be responsible for the tax on the 
fish he packed or shipped out of Alaska. 

Mr. Hadley. You say responsible for it. Have you something else 
in mind that you have not expressed about somebody else who is to 
assume a share of it % 

Mr. Strong. Well, it comes out of the product, and I think it 
would 

Mr. Hadley (interposing). Well, I think it is perfectly clear that 
you propose that one class shall pay the entire tax and that others 
who receive benefits from the industry shall pay nothing. I wanted 
to be sure I understood you, and if that is your view that is all I 
care to ask. 

Mr. Greene. Would there not be some difficulty in collecting this 
tax?" Would there not be considerable expense involved in collect- 
ing it? 

Mr. Strong. There would be, as provided for in this bill, though 
my suggestion would eliminate nearly all of the expense and the 
annoyance of collecting from natives and roaming fishermen. 

Mr. Greene. You would not get enough net income out of it to 
warrant the large expense of collecting it. You would have men 
traveling all over attempting to collect the tax, and the cost would 
be so much that it would not be worth collecting. 

Mr. Wickersham. It would cost $10 for $1. 

Mr. Strong. I think my idea would simplify it very much and 
save expense. 

Mr. Greene. You are trying to get an income and yet you are 
going to provide for traveling all over that section of the country to 
collect that income which will result in paying out nearly all the 
money collected in traveling expenses and the salaries of those 
making the collections. 

The Chairman. That is the difficulty about it exactly. 

Mr. Wickersham. You would have to organize a regular taxation 
bureau, which would cost much more than they could possibly 
collect. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 225 

Mr. Greene. You would have to raise your tax higher in order to 
get something back into the Treasury. 

Mr. Hadley. Suppose it developed that the product could not 
pay that amount of tax, having regard to the cost of production, 
and so on ; in such event where would the rest of the tax be raised — 
what Avould be the source of it? 

Mr. Strong. Well, the tax that has been assessed against the can- 
nery business is ample to cover everything, and if any more revenue 
is needed there are many ways to get it in Alaska without bearing 
any harder on the fisheries. I think the fisheries have already been 
taxed out of proportion with other interests. 

Mr. Hadley. It is proposed to increase the tax. 

Mr. Strong. I think the industry should oppose any additional 
taxes. 

Mr. Britton. What is your idea about the difficulty of collecting 
this raw-product tax? Why should there be any difficulty in col- 
lecting it? 

Mr. Strong. I believe it will be very difficult to collect the tax 
from the different crews because I know how they are; I have done 
business with them and I know how they split up two or three times 
during a season, and when it became necessary to pay the tax in the 
fall or at the end of the year you would have one sweet time in set- 
tling with them. 

Mr. Britton. For whom do these crews fish ? 

Mr. Strong. For the various canneries, but some of them fish for 
the fresh-fish market. 

Mr. Britton. The canners would be responsible for their catch, 
would they not? 

Mr. Wickersham. This bill does not make them so. 

Mr. Reynolds. Is it not a fact that most of these Indians are 
supplied with nets, gasoline, and a great deal of their equipment 
by the canneries, and that they trust them for that amount of money 
until the end of the season ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, 

Mr. Reynolds. And sometimes it runs for three or four seasons? 

Mr. Strong. Yes; some of them do that. They get assistance 
from one cannery and then go and sell elsewhere. That is the way 
some do, and the canner is the goat in more ways than one in 
Alaska. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, his idea is that there should 
be a tax on the catch, but that it is not practicable to collect it ; that 
when the time comes to collect it the party liable is not there; and 
that it would cost much money to run him down to collect the tax. 
I suppose that most of them are insolvent ; and while there is a 1 per 
cent penalty if the tax is not paid when it is due. and they may 
proceed in court to collect the tax, yet you would have great diffi- 
culty in getting it out of most of them. 

Mr. Britton. The fact is that the majority of these natives of 
whom he speaks are actually employed by the canneries, who furnish 
them with their outfits, and the raw product would be paid for by 
the people who employ them ? 

The Chairman. Then ought not the bill to provide that the can- 
neries shall be liable for this tax on the fish they purchase? 



226 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Britton. They will be liable; they would naturally pay that 
anyhow, but we want to get the fish that are escaping. We do not 
want refrigerating plants and others to pay no tax at all, as under 
existing law. 

The Chairman. We ought to have a provision in this bill that 
that output shall be assessed and the tax collected through the col- 
lector of customs or in some other way. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Edmonds asked me a few minutes ago how 
we paid the taxes in Alaska levied by the Territory, and I did not 
answer it. I think it will clear up this situation generally if I say 
they are all paid through the clerk of the court. 

Mr. Warren. I think, to meet Mr. Strong's objection, that there is 
a modification of it, which was discussed last year by the Legisla- 
tures of the States of Washington and Oregon, with reference to 
what they term the irresponsible class on the Columbia River. They 
considered the gill-net class, or the roving population, were the 
people who were very hard to get at, and that there is another class — 
the haul-seine or drag-seine men — who in some places, particularly 
on Puget Sound, are also hard to get at. In order to meet the ob- 
jection in that respect they estimated as near as they could the total 
amount of fish caught by the gill nets and divided it by the amount 
of gear on the river, and fixed their license at $7.50, which would 
roughly represent the original tax plus the per thousand tax. They 
did that also with the other people, but as to the pound-net and 
purse-seine people, both of whom own their own equipment and who 
are responsible, they put them on the per thousand basis. 

Mr. Wickersham. The idea being that you would make a man pay 
a license which would equal the original tax on the responsible class ? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir ; in that way they caught the roving class. 

Mr. Curry. Would an Indian be in a position to pay that license 
at the beginning of the season ? 

Mr. Warren. I think that the Indian, or whoever he was fishing 
for, would advance that license. On the river, if we have a good 
man who can not pay the license, we will pay it and charge it to him 
and take it out of his catch. 

Mr. Curry. How long does it take you to get it back ? 

Mr. Warren. Well, if the license is only $7.50, it would not take 
long to get that back. 

Mr. Curry. Can the government of Alaska collect this tax eco- 
nomically ? 

Mr. Bower. The personal-property tax? 

Mr. Curry. Yes. 

Mr. Bower. Well, it has not applied it yet, although it had the 
authority after the passage of the act of August 24, 1912. I believe 
I am correct in saying that it has never levied any real-property tax. 

Mr. Wickersham. It never has — real or personal. 

Mr. Bower. No; it never has clone that. 

Mr. Curry. Could it do that economically ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; I think it could. 

Mr. Curry. It would be a duplication of organization and effort 
if the United States Government collects a tax also. 

Mr. Wickersham. Not necessarily. One tax assessor goes around 
once a year and assesses the property and if there is no change in 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 227 

the property, probably it would not be necessary to assess it more 
than once in one or two years. 

Mr. Curry. Well, it may not be a legal assessment if it is not as- 
sessed more than once in two or three years. 

The Chairman. Why would not a better plan be an equitable dis- 
tribution of the tax? I am not sure that the 50 per cent basis is an 
equitable distribution. The Territory of Alaska ought to get as 
much revenue as it gets now and proportionately more as the industry 
develops. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, I think that the question of the 
tax is one of the smallest matters in the whole controversy. 

The Chairman. I think it is a very vital question. 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, yes ; I know it is a vital question with the 
people of Alaska. We are very anxious that these people shall pay 
no more than anybody else in the Territory. 

The Chairman. That is not the question I am asking. If it is 
all collected by the same agency from the same source and is dis- 
tributed on a percentage basis, Alaska getting a full equitable share, 
is not that better than for the Government to collect the license tax 
and then for the Territory to levy a real estate and personal tax to 
be assessed and collected separately by different agencies? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; but on the basis fixed in this bill it would 
not be an equal tax. 

The Chairman. Well, that could be adjusted. 

Mr. Wickersham. Possibly. 

The Chairman. That is my opinion. 

Mr. Curry. The real meat in this bill is the question as to whether 
or not the United States Government shall control the fisheries of 
Alaska or whether they should be turned over to the Territory of 
Alaska for regulation. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is nothing in this bill to justify that 
statement at all. 

Mr. Curry. Well, if you give the Government the right to tax, you 
give it the right to regulate. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further, we will adjourn until 
Monday- next at 10 o'clock. We will hear Judge Wickersham on 
Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 



x 



^.L^SICA. FISHEEIBS 
HEARINGS 

BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE ON THE 
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

First Session 

on 

H. R. 9528 

A BILL FOR THE PROTECTION, REGULATION, AND CON- 
SERVATION OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA 



PART 4 



JUNE 7, 1916 






WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1916 



COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES. 
House of Representatives. 



JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. 



RUFTJS HARDY, Texas. 
MICHAEL E. BURKE. Wisconsin. 
EDWARD W. SAUNDERS, Virgina. 
PETER J. DOOLING, New York. 
HENRY BRUCKNER, New York. 
LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN. Arkansas. 
JAMES F. BYRNES, South Garolina. 
JESSE D. PRICE, Maryland. 
CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. 



OSCAR L. GRAY. Alabama. 
DAVID H. KINCHELOE, Kentucky. 
WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. 
ASHER C. HINDS, Maine. 
CHARLES F. CURRY; California. 
GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania. 
WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, Illinois. 
GEORGE A. LOUD, Michigan. 
LINDLEY H. RADLEY. Washington. 
FREDERICK W. ROWE, New York. 
C. Bay, Clerk. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, 

Wednesday, June 7, 1916. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joshua W. Alex- 
ander (chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM, A DELEGATE IN 
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is a very 
proper thing first to state what I think the issue in the case before 
the court is before proceeding to either argument or the offering of 
testimony. I am going to assume that the committee has this bill 
before them in its entirety. Of course, the Secretary has said to 
the committee that he did not longer approve section 21, and that 
feature of the bill which takes away from the Territory of Alaska 
its power over the shore property of the canneries and the other real 
estate belonging to the fishing interests in the Territory. 

The Chairman. I should think, Judge, you ought to consider the 
bill as it is presented to the committee and not in the light of the 
Secretary's concession here the other day. In other words, we would 
like to have the whole question presented. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is what I was going to say to the com- 
mittee. I want to consider it in that way notwithstanding what the 
Secretary said, because the committee has the jurisdiction, and the 
committee might eventually conclude that the Secretary was mis- 
taken, and that the bill ought to be passed in a much broader way 
than he suggested to the committee. 

Now that being true, the situation presents itself to me in this 
way : Here is a bill which takes away from the Territory of Alaska 
the right to tax the shore property of these fishing interests. I will 
show you that that amounts to something like $10,000,000, as stated 
in the official reports of the Bureau of Fisheries. It would take away 
from the Territory of Alaska the right to tax not only the shore 
property but all of the paraphernalia used by the fishing interests in 
taking fish in the waters of Alaska, and that amount is stated by the 
report of the Bureau of Fisheries to be something over $35,000,000. 
Now that is apparent upon the official reports before the committee, 
but it has another purpose — I will not say purpose, but it will have 
another result, and that result will be to transfer the title of the 
fisheries of Alaska from the people of the United States and from 
the people of Alaska to the representatives of the Fish Trust; in other 

229 



230 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

words, if this bill should be passed as it is now approved by the 
Secretary of Commerce and by the Bureau of Fisheries, the practical 
effect of it will be to give the Fish Trust title to all these trap sites in 
the Territory of Alaska. They have those trap sites now already 
surveyed. They have not told you about that. They have done every- 
thing that is necessary for them to do under this bill, if it shall be- 
come a law, to enable them instantly and immediately to take charge 
of all the trap sites and all of the locations in the Territory of Alaska 
where salmon are caught, and immediately to become the owners of 
those trap sites. 

Mr. Greene. Please tell us what this Fish Trust is; who is it, 
whom it represents, and where it originated? 

Mr. Wickersham. I will do that with great pleasure. I have the 
indictments against them here and all the data in relation to it, and 
I aim not going to miss doing that if I can get the opportunity to 
present the mattter fully to the committee. 

Mr. Curry. Have they been indicted? 

Mr. Wickersham. The Booth Fisheries Co. has been indicted for 
violation of the Sherman antitrust law in Alaska. 

The Chairman. I would suggest that the judge be permitted to 
go ahead and make his statement, and then we can take up these 
matters and inquire about them later. 

Mr. Greene. It was not my intention to embarass him at all. 

The Chairman. I understand that. I was about to ask the same 
question myself. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have the testimony here, and I will intro- 
duce it. 

The Chairman. Of course, it is a matter which each member of 
the committee will use its own judgment about, and I simply made 
that as a suggestion to you. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am in the same position as an attorney pre- 
senting a case to a court. I have the testimony here. If the testi- 
mony, the law, and the argument convince you, gentlemen, I hope 
to get a verdict. If it does not, I hope I will not get a verdict. I 
want to present it fairly, and I am sure the committee will treat 
the matter fairly because it is a matter of the very gravest im- 
portance to the people of this country. I want to call the atten- 
tion of the committee to the amount involved in this case. That is 
always a matter of some consideration in the trial of a lawsuit. The 
fishery products of Alaska for the half century from 1867 to 1916, 
inclusive, has amounted to $217,363,828, according to the official 
statements. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is that the net amount? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; that is the gross amount. I get that by 
adding to the general statement which is issued by duplicating the 
amount for 1915 for 1916. That is the only addition I have made to 
the statement. I have allowed $21,800,000 for 1915, which is stated 
to be correct, and I have duplicated that for 1916, and in doing that 
I get the amount of $247,363,828. Now, that is the character of the 
litigation before this court. That is what it amounts to, and that is 
what we are here to show to this committee. 

Mr. Hardy. I would suggest that does not fairly show it, because, 
as I suggested the other clay, the big end of that is the end which is 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



231 



likely to grow, and the product is likely to be for the next 10 years 
possibly more than it was for the last half century. 

Mr. Wickersiiam. You are correct about that, Judge Hardy. 
There is no question about that. So that the amount involved before 
this committee is very much larger than I have put it, for that reason, 
and for that reason again the committee ought to give that much 
more attention to this matter. 

Xow, I have here a statement of the production of canned salmon 
on the Pacific coast from 186-1 to 1916. I think if the committee will 
permit me, I will put the table in the hearing, but I will call your 
attention to so much of it now as I want to present just at this 
moment. I have this statement divided off into different columns by 
the different years. For instance, here is the output for California, 
the output for coastal Oregon, the output for the Columbia River, 
the output for the State of "Washington, the output for British 
Columbia, and the output for Alaska, and then a total column. 
Now. the total number of cases, each case containing forty-eight 
1-pound cans, from Alaska up to date is 57,242,873. The total from 
California is 1,563,639. I will not give you any more of the figures, 
but I will give you now the percentages of the total output of canned 
salmon on the Pacific coast. California up to this date has produced 
1.27 per cent of the total ; coastal Oregon has produced 1.94 per cent 
of the total; Columbia River has produced 15.96 per cent of the 
total; Washington has produced 16.08 per cent of the total; British 
Columbia has produced 18.19 per cent of the total; and Alaska has 
produced 46.54 per cent of the total. Leaving out British Columbia 
and British Columbia waters, Alaska has produced considerably 
more than one-half of all the canned salmon that has been produced 
on the Pacific coast since the settlement of the country. 

I call your attention, gentlemen, to these figures to show you the 
enormous value of the judgment which you are to render, and the 
way I look at it; your judgment is to determine whether this great 
food supply on the Pacific coast shall remain the food supply of the 
people of this country or whether it shall go to the Fish Trust. 

( The statement referred to follows : ) 

Production of canned salmon on the Pacific coast, 1864-1916. 

[Cases: Each case contains forty-eight 1-pound cans.] 



Years. 


California. 


Coastal 
Oregon. 


Columbia 
River. 


Washing- 
ton. 


British 
Columbia. 


Alaska. 


Total. 


1864 


2,000 
2,000 












2,000 


1865 












2,000 


1866 




4,000 
18,000 
28,000 
100,000 
150,000 
200,000 
250,000 
250,000 
350,000 
375,000 
4.50,000 
380,000 
460,000 
480,000 
530,000 
550,000 
541, 300 








4 000 


1867 












18, 000 


1868 












28,000 
100,000 
150,000 


1869 












1870 












1871 












200,000 
250,000 


1872 












1873 












250,000 
352,500 
378,000 
467,247 


1874 


2,500 

3,000 

10,000 

30,000 

48,974 

13,855 

75,750 

181,200 

200, 000 










1875 










1S76 






7,247 
58, 387 
89, 946 
61,093 
61,849 
169,576 
240, 461 




1877 


7,804 
16, 634 
8,571 
7,772 
12,320 
19, 186 


5,500 
5,65S 
1,300 
5,100 
8,500 
7,900 




481,691 


1879 


8,159 
12,530 
6,539 
8,977 
21,745 


629, 191 
577,340 


1880 


687,010 


1SS1 


930, 573 


18S2 


1.030,592 



232 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Production of canned salmon on the Pacific coast, 1864-1916 — Continued. 



Years. 



1883. 
1884. 
1885. 
1886. 

1887. 



1890. 
1891. 
1892. 
1893. 
1894. 
1895. 
1896. 
1897. 



1900. 
1901. 
1902. 
1903. 
1904. 
1905. 
1906. 
1907. 
1908. 
1909. 
1910. 
1911. 
1912. 
1913. 
1914. 
1915. 
1916. 



Total. 
Per cent 



California. 



123,000 
81,450 
90,000 
39, 300 
36, 500 
74,822 
57,300 
25,065 
10, 353 

2,281 
26, 436 
31,663 
29. 035 
13, 387 
38, 543 
29, 731 
34,180 
39, 304 
17,500 
16, 543 

8,200 
17,807 

2,780 



Coastal 
Oregon. 



5,633 
14,016 
11, 746 
33, 200 

7,326 
31,315 
23, 062 
23,062 



1, 563, 639 
1.27 



16, 156 
12,376 
9,310 
49, 147 
73, 996 
92, 863 
98, 800 
47; 009 
24,500 
83, 600 
52, 778 
54, 815 
77, 878 
87,360 
60, 158 
75, 679 
82, 041 
12,237 
58,618 
44, 236 
54, 861 
98, 874 
89, 055 

107, 332 
79,712 
52, 478 
58, 169 

103,617 

153, 828 
77, 765 
42,441 

116,335 
80, 499 

1 80, 499 



Columbia 
River. 



2, 381, 259 
1.94 



629, 400 
620, 000 
553,800 
448, 500 
356,000 
372,477 
309, 885 
435,774 
398, 953 
487, 338 
415, 876 
490, 100 

634. 696 

481. 697 
552. 721 
487, 944 
332,774 
358, 772 
390,183 
317,143 
339,577 
395, 104 
397, 273 
494, 898 
324,171 
253, 341 
274, 087 
391,415 
543,331 
285, 666 
266, 479 
455; 500 
558, 534 

» 558, 534 



Washing- 
ton. 



19, 628, 243 
15.96 



1,500 

5,500 

12,000 

17,000 

22,000 

81,475 

11, 674 

8,000 

29, 029 

57, 426 

127, 969 

131,900 

214,017 

241, 879 

536, 926 

433, 729 

965, 165 

526, 550 

1,456,090 

632, 651 

484,378 

345, 447 

1,055,641 

467, 042 

725,462 

483,222 

1, 664, 760 

633, 521 

1.644,550 

495,619 

2, 646, 807 

862, 761 

1, 354, 775 

1 1, 354, 775 



19, 785, 189 
16.08 



British 
Columbia. 



163,438 

123,706 

108, 517 

152,964 

204,083 

184,040 

417,211 

411, 257 

314,511 

248, 721 

610, 202 

492, 232 

587, 692 

617, 782 

1,027,183 

492, 551 

765, 519 

606, 540 

1,247,212 

627, 161 

473, 847 

465, 894 

1,167,822 

629, 460 

547, 459 

566, 303 

993,060 

760, 830 

948, 965 

996, 576 

1,353,901 

1,111,039 

1,133,381 

11,133,381 



22, 372, 999 
18.19 



Alaska. 



48, 337 

64,886 

83, 415 

142, 065 

206,677 

412, 115 

719,196 

682, 591 

801, 400 

474, 717 

643, 654 

686, 440 

626, 530 

966, 707 

909, 078 

965, 097 

1, 078, 146 

1,548,139 

2, 016, 804 

2, 536, 824 

2, 246, 210 

1,953,756 

1,894,516 

2, 219, 044 

2, 169, 873 

2, 606, 973 

2,395,477 

2, 413, 054 

2, 820, 066 

4, 060, 129 

3,746,493 

4, 067, 832 

4, 489, 341 

4, 489, 341 



57, 242, 873 
46.54 



Total. 



981, 831 
907,918 
857,042 
848, 976 
899, 256 
1,217,792 
1,614,066 
1, 609, 696 
1, 578, 746 
1, 354, 083 
1,876,915 
1, 887, 150 
2, 169, 848 
2, 408, 812 
3, 124, 609 
2, 484, 722 
3, 257, 825 
3, 091, 542 
5,186,407 
4, 194, 558 
3, 607, 073 
3,276,882 
4, 607, 087 
3, 817, 776 
3, 846, 677 
3,962,317 
5,391,186 
4, 316, 453 
6, 122, 486 
5, 948, 955 
8, 063, 447 
6, 644, 782 
7, 639, 592 
7, 639, 592 



122, 974, 252 
99.98 



1 Estimated, same as pack for 1915. 

Now, the Territory of Alaska has never had any control over the 
fisheries. I rather got an impression from what some of these gen- 
tlemen said that they were trying to convey the impression to this 
committee that the Territory of Alaska had in some way had some 
control over the fisheries of Alaska. We have only had a legislature 
in Alaska for four years. By the act of August 24, 1912, Congress 
created a Territorial legislature in Alaska for the first time, and 
never before that had Alaska had any way of controlling the fish- 
eries, and she never did. 

Mr. Curry. I did not understand them to say that Alaska had 
any control of the fisheries, Judge. 

Mr. AVickersham. Well, I did not say they did. I say I rather 
got the impression they were trying to convey some sort of idea of 
that kind to the committee. The committee heard what was said, 
and if I am wrong in my conclusion the committee will not be preju- 
diced in any way by it. 

Mr. Goodwin. The impression I gained was to the effect that the 
policy of the Territory of Alaska was to exercise control over the 
fisheries there instead of the United States, in order that the reve- 
nues might go to the exchequer of Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; but the Territory of Alaska was limited 
by its organic act. I prepared the organic act of 1912 myself. It 
gave the Territory of Alaska control over her fisheries. I thought 
then she ought to have that control. I think now she ought to have 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 233 

it. I think the fisheries of Alaska would be very much better con- 
trolled and conserved, very much better preserved and protected if 
the Territorial Legislature of Alaska had the duty of looking after 
them. But Congress took a different view of that matter and an 
amendment was made in the organic law on the floor of either the 
House or the Senate barring the Territory from any control over its 
fisheries, and that is the law now. 

Mr. Goodwin. Should Alaska control the fisheries, would all the 
revenues then go into the treasury of Alaska or not? 

Mr. Wigkersham. They always have in every other State or Ter- 
ritory. 

Now, I call the committee's attention to the organic act creating 
the Territorial Legislature of Alaska. You will find it in the com- 
piled laws of Alaska for 1913, of which the chairman has a copy. 

The Chairman. What page? 

Mr. Wickersham. Two hundred and sixty-eight. In section 3 of 
that act, being section 110 of the compiled laws, is the only authority 
which the Legislature of Alaska has in any respect in relation to its 
fisheries. All the other laws in Alaska, and there are many others, 
have been passed by Congress and have been passed for the control of 
the fisheries by the Bureau of Fisheries in the Department of Com- 
merce. In section 410 it is provided : 

That tlie Constitution of the United States and all the laws thereof which 
nre not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the said 
Territory as elsewhere in the United States ; that all the laws of the United 
Slates heretofore passed establishing the executive and judicial departments in 
Alaska shall continue in full force and effect until amended or repealed by act 
of Congress. 

Xow. I call the committee's attention to the difference in the next 
phrase in this bill, and then I will explain why that difference exists : 

That, except as herein provided, all laws now in force in Alaska shall con- 
tinue in full force and effect until altered, amended, or repealed by Congress or 
by the legislature. 

Xoav, if you will permit me to stop right there, I would say that 
that gives the Territory of Alaska the right to alter, amend, and 
repeal certain laws in force in the Territory of Alaska. That arose 
in this way : Congress did for Alaska at one time what we never did 
for any other Territory. In 1899 Congress passed a criminal code 
drawn from the code of Oregon applicable to Alaska. In 1900 Con- 
gress passed a civil code and established courts, and all that kind of 
thing, in the Territory of Alaska, and passed a large number of 
other laws in that civil code relative to the control of the civil gov- 
ernment in the Territory of Alaska. Therefore when this bill came 
up some method had to be provided for enabling the Territorial 
legislature to change, alter, or amend those laws which had been 
passed by Congress, and that clause was put in there for that purpose. 

Section 3 of the act of August 24, 1912, goes on with this proviso: 

Provided, That the authority herein granted to the legislature to alter, amend, 
modify, and repeal laws in force in Alaska shall not extend to the customs, 
internal-revenue, postal, or other general laws of the United States, or to the 
game, fish, and fur-seal laws and laws relating to fur-bearing animals of the 
United States applicable to Alaska, or to the laws of the United States provid- 
ing for taxes on business and trade, or to the act entitled "An act to provide for 
the construction and maintenance of roads, the establishment and maintenance 



234 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

of schools, and the care and support of insane persons in the District of Alaska, 
and for other purposes," approved January twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred 
and five, and the several acts amendatory thereof : Provided further — 

I call the committee's attention especially to this clause because it is 
the only authority the Territory of Alaska has over the fisheries : 

Provided further, That this provision shall not operate to prevent the legis- 
lature from imposing other and additional taxes or licenses. And the legislature 
shall pass no law depriving the judges and officers of the District Court of 
Alaska of any authority, jurisdiction, or function exercised by like judges or 
officers of district courts of the United States. 

So that, Mr. Chairman, to-day the Territory of Alaska does not 
have and never has had any authority, power, or jurisdiction over the 
fisheries of Alaska except as you will find it in that one clause, " that 
this provision shall not operate to prevent the legislature from im- 
posing other and additionaltaxes or licenses." 

Now, the legislature did pass a law imposing other and additional 
taxes and licenses under that authority. 

The Chairman. On the fisheries? 

Mr. Wickersham. On the fisheries. The act passed by the legisla- 
ture of Alaska, approved April 29, 1915, found in the session laws 
of Alaska for 1915, being the session laws of the second session, page 
185, is an act to establish a system of taxation, create revenue, and 
provide for collection thereof for the Territory of Alaska and for 
other purposes, etc., as follow T s: 

Be it enacted oy the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska: That any person, 
firm, or corporation prosecuting or attempting to prosecute any of the following 
lines of business in the Territory of Alaska shall apply for and obtain a license 
any pay for said license for the respective lines of business a follows : 

First. Attorneys at law, doctors, and dentists, $10 per annum. 

Second. Automobiles, $5 per annum ; bakeries, electric light and power plants ; 
employment agencies. 

And then we come to fisheries in alphabetical order : 

Sixth. Fisheries : Salmon canneries, four cents per case on king and reds or 
sockeye ; two cents per case on medium reds ; one cent per case on all others. 

Seventh. Salteries : Two and one-half cents per one hundred pounds on all 
fish salted or mild cured, except herring. 

Eighth. Fish traps: Fixed or floating, $100 per annum. So-called dummy 
traps included. 

Ninth. Gill nets: $1 per hundred fathoms or fraction thereof. 

Tenth. Cold storage fish plants : Doing a business of $100,000 per annum or 
more, $500 per annum ; doing a business of $75,000 per annum and less than 
$100,000, $375 per annum ; doing a business of $50,000 and less than $75,000 per 
annum, $250 per annum ; doing a business of $25,000 and less than $50,000 per 
annum, $125 per annum ; doing a business of $10,000 and less than $25,000 per 
annum, $50 per annum; doing a business of $4,000 and less than $10,000 per 
annum, $25 per annum; doing a business under $4,000 per annum, $10 per 
annum. The " annual business " under this section shall be considered the 
amount paid per annum for the product. 

The eleventh section refers to laundries and the twelfth to meat 
markets, and on meat markets they levy the same identical ratio of 
tax that they do upon cold storage plants, and the Government has 
in the laws which I will call your attention to shortly levied the same 
identical rate upon all other business men in the Territory of Alaska, 
and that is the rate wdiich has been levied by Congress itself upon all 
those who conduct similar businesses in the Territory of Alaska . Now, 
of course, some of those are not included in here, for instance, cold 
storage plants are not included in the act of Congress. You have 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 235 

never levied ;i tax upon cold storage plants in the Territory; of this 
nature, at least. 

Thirteenth. Minings One per cent of the net income in excess of $5,000, etc. 
Fourteenth. Public scavengers; Fifty dollars per annum. 

Then they levy a tax of this nature upon ships and shipping. 

Sixteenth. Telephone companies. 
Seventeenth. Water works. 
Eighteenth. Public messengers, etc 

Now, I have gone over this bill very fully to show you that it is a 
general bill levying a tax upon all classes and kinds of people in 
Alaska which are not included in the tax which you yourself in other 
acts of Congress heretofore have levied upon the people of Alaska for 
similar purposes. 

The Chairman. Let me understand you at that point. Congress 
does not levy any tax upon those various occupations or businesses 
now ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, yes, Judge. 

The Chairman. Aside from the fisheries? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, yes, indeed. That is where we get the 
Alaska fund that these gentlemen are talking about all the time. 
They are adding up our Alaska fund that we pay ourselves and talk- 
ing about that. 

As I have told you, in 1899 Congress passed a criminal code for the 
Territory of Alaska and at that time concluded that some fund was 
necessary for floating the extra branches of civil government in the 
Territory of Alaska, and in that act of 1899 Congress made this 
proviso 

Mr. Curry (interposing). I want to understand about that Alaska 
fund. Are we to understand that the $166,000 paid into that fund 
last year included all these other licenses as w'ell as the license on 
fish? 

Mr. Wickersham. All of the taxes paid in Alaska go into the 
Alaska fund. I am not prepared to say how much of it came from 
the fisheries. 

Mr. Curry. Did that $166,000 come from the fisheries or from them 
all? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know. 

Mr. Curry. It has been stated here that it came from the fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. I know it has. I heard that. I will find out a 
little bit later. The Alaska fund was created by the act of 1905, and 
it provided : 

That all moneys derived from and collected for liquor licenses, occupation or 
trade licenses outside of the incorporated towns in the District of Alaska shall 
be deposited in the Treasury Department of the United States, there to remain 
as a separate and distinct fund, to he known as the Alaska fund, and to be 
wholly devoted to the purposes hereinafter stated in the District of Alaska. 
One-fourth of said fund, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall he de- 
voted to the establishment and maintenance of public schools in said District; 
five per centum of said fund shall be devoted to the care and maintenance of 
insane persons in said District, or so much of said five per centum as may be 
needed ; and all the residue of said fund shall be devoted to the construction and 
maintenance of wagon roads, bridges, and trails in said District. 

Now, since that bill was passed Congress has passed an amenda- 
tory act, and now 25 per cent of that fund is used for the establish- 
ment of schools under the control of the governor of Alaska through 



236 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

the Interior Department; 10 per cent of it is used as an indigent 
fund through the Department of Justice, and apportioned by the 
judges of the district court in Alaska, and the remainder of it, 65 
per cent, is expended through the War Department by a board of 
Army officers for the building of Government military roads in the 
Territory of Alaska. 

I now want to go back and show you the license law in Alaska. 
In 1899 Congress passed the Criminal Code of Alaska, and one sec- 
tion of that criminal code, which you will find in the compiled laws 
before you, provides as follows, at page 782, section 2569 : 

That any person or persons, corporation, or company prosecuting or attempt- 
ing to prosecute any of the following lines of business within the District of 
Alaska shall first apply fur and obtain license to do so from a district court or 
a subdivision thereof in said district and pay for said license for the respec- 
tive lines of business and trade as follows, to wit — 

Now, Mr. Chairman, right there, I am putting special emphasis 
upon the word " license," because of the statement of somebody here 
that there was no such law in Alaska and that the Government did 
not require a license system of this kind to be maintained in Alaska. 
That is very incorrect, and in this act of 1915 the Legislature of 
Alaska quoted these words from the act of Congress. It was not 
necessary for them to do it, but they did. 

The act of the legislature says : 

That any person, firm, or corporation prosecuting or attempting to prosecute 
any of the following lines of business in the Territory of Alaska shall apply 
for and obtain a license and pay for said license for the respective lines of 
business as follows. 

Those are substantially, if not identically, the same words as those 
contained in the act passed by Congress in 1899. 

Mr. Hardy. Do I understand that the Territorial legislature in 
passing its act only required licenses for the kinds of business not 
included in the congressional act? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, with one exception; they levied an addi- 
tional license tax upon canneries. 

Mr. Hardy. And the rest of the licenses provided for by the Ter- 
ritorial legislature covered fields not covered by the congressional 
act? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and if, under this bill, you disapprove 
that act, or repeal it without any saving clause, the people of Alaska 
would not only lose the little portion of the revenues they get from 
the fisheries, but all the rest of the taxes they have levied upon the 
people of Alaska 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing). Does this bill in its terms or in effect 
repeal that legislative enactment? 

Mr. Hardy. This bill in terms says that the Legislature of the 
Territory of Alaska would be allowed to impose no other or further 
taxes, and that these shall be in lieu of all other taxes. 

Mr. Wickersham. This bill provides, in section 21 : 

That from and after the passage of this act the Territory of Alaska shall not 
pass any legislation that has the effect of repealing, altering, or amending this 
act, nor shall said Territory impose any license fees or taxes upon the business 
hereinbefore referred to, nor upon the output thereof, nor upon any property, 
real or personal, used in said business in said Territory, and any such existing 
statutes heretofore enacted by the Territory of Alaska are hereby expressly 
disapproved. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 237 



Section 25 provides: 



That after this act takes effect the acl of Congress entitled, "An act for the 
protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska," approved June twenty- 
sixth, nineteen hundred and six. and all acts <»r parts of acts of Congress or 
the Territorial Legislature of Alaska inconsistent with the provisions of this 
act, may be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 

In addition to that, a bill has been prepared by the department 
and given to Judge Alexander, and introduced by him and referred 
to the Committee on the Territories, where it is now pending, which 
specifically repeals this section 

Mr. Thurman (interposing). Is it not limited to the fisheries sec- 
tion ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I am not sure about that, but my judgment is 
that it is not. 

Mr. Curry. This act before us limits it to the fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think it does. 

Mr. Thurman. And the other one was intended to be. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know anything about it, except from 
what I see on the face of these acts. 

Mr. Thurman. It was so stated at the hearings, was it not? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not remember that it was. It might have 
been, but I do not remember that it was. 

Mr. Chairman, I just called attention to this section 2569 of the 
Territorial laws, and have read the first portion of it. This act 
provides : 

That any person or persons, corporation, or company prosecuting or attempt- 
ing to prosecute any of the following lines of business within the District of 
Alaska shall first apply for and obtain license so to do from a district court or 
a subdivision thereof in said district and pay for said license for the respective 
lines of business and trade as follows, to wit : 

Abstract offices, $50 per annum. 

I will not read all of this list, but will just run over the heads. 
It includes banks, boarding houses, brokers, billiard rooms, bowling 
alleys, breweries, bottling works, cigar manufacturers, cigar stores 
or stands, drug stores, etc. Then, under " Fisheries," I read : 

Salmon canneries, four cents per ca.se: salmon salteries, ten cents per barrel; 
fish oil works, ten cents per barrel; fertilizer works, twenty cents per ten. 

That was levied by Congress under this act of 1899, and it was 
reenacted in the act of 1900. Following fisheries come freight and 
passenger transportation lines, gas plants, hotels, public halls, in- 
surance agents and brokers, jewelers, mines, and mercantile estab- 
lishments. 

Xow. the Territorial legislature has not pretended to levy any 
taxes upon mercantile establishments, because the same tax is levied 
in this act of Congress upon mercantile establishments which the 
legislature of Alaska has levied in its act upon cold-storage plants, 
and because cold-storage plants were not included in the act of Con- 
gress. The act proceeds — I will just run over these heads: meat 
markets, manufactories not enumerated herein, physicians, planing 
mills, pawnbrokers, peddlers, patent-medicine venders, railroads, 
restaurants, real estate dealers and brokers, ships and shipping, saw- 
mills, steam ferries, toll road or trail, tobacconists, tramways, trans- 
fer companies, taxidermists, theaters, and waterworks. 



238 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Now, Congress itself levied that tax and created a license system 
in Alaska. In 1899 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing). Those taxes are still levied by act of 
Congress ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; and they make up the Alaska fund. 

Mr. Goodwin. And no part of those things are now taxed by the 
legislature of Alaska, except fisheries? 

Mr. Wickersham. Nothing except fisheries. The legislature did 
that because it was their judgment that the fish canning establish- 
ments were not paying their fair proportion of the taxes. They 
were paying less than one-half of 1 per cent, and the additional tax 
put upon them by the Territorial legislature did not exceed one-half 
of 1 per cent, which is the general basis of all these taxing laws in 
Alaska. 

Mr. Goodwin. How adequate are the revenues arising from the 
Territorial taxes for carrying on the government? 

Mr. Wickersham. They would be adequate if these people would 
pay their taxes, but they do not pay them. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is there any way by which they can be compelled 
to pay them? 

Mr. Wickersham. They have not paid any of those taxes imposed 
upon the fisheries by the act of the Territorial legislature, or very 
little of them. They are all in litigation. Suits were brought against 
them in the courts of Alaska, and the cases were tried there before 
Judge Jennings, the United States district judge in Alaska. He is 
a good lawyer and was appointed by President Wilson. He decided 
in favor of the Territory upon all the different phases of the matters 
presented to him in that litigation, and the cases are now on appeal 
to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 
in San Francisco. We are waiting from day to day for a decision 
of the court in that matter. 

Mr. Goodwin. Did all the other people pay the taxes assessed 
against them, except the fisheries ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, they did — no, some of the big quartz com- 
panies have not paid. 

Mr. Goodwin. And the fisheries refused because the United States 
Government imposed a tax upon them? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

The Chairman. They refused upon the ground that the Territo- 
rial legislature had no jurisdiction of the matter under this proviso : 

Provided, That the authority herein granted to the legislature to alter, amend, 
modify, and repeal laws in force in Alaska shall not extend to the customs, 
internal revenue, postal, or other general laws of the United States, or to the 
game, fish, and fur-sea laws and laws relating to fur-bearing animals of the 
United States applicable to Alaska. 

I understand that that is the proviso under which it is claimed 
that the Territorial legislature has no jurisdiction to levy this addi- 
tional tax. _ m 

Mr. Wickersham. That does not take into consideration that other 

proviso : 

Provided, however, That this provision shall not operate to prevent the 
legislature from imposing other and additional taxes or licenses. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 239 

Mr. Goodwin. That does not give the legislature authority to levy 
taxes upon fisheries or canneries. I do not remember the language, 
but this provision does not 

The Chairman (interposing). I simply call your attention to that, 
but 1 do not want to express any opinion about it. 

Mr. Habdt. Is that the act of 1899 and 1900? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy Containing that proviso preventing the legislature 
from imposing other taxes 

Mr. Wickersham (interposing) . You are referring to the act of 
August 21, 1912. That is a different law altogether. 

Mr. Byrnes. Judge Wickersham, I was not here at the last meet- 
ing, and that may be responsible for my not understanding the 
situation. Is it your contention that section 21 of this bill would 
prevent the Territorial legislature from levying a tax upon the 
fisheries ? Is that your contention ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Section 21? 

Mr. Byrnes. The section you read a few moments ago. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Byrnes. Now, as to all of the license fees to which you have 
referred, what relevancy do they have to this provision ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Because these license fees are fixed by the legis- 
lature m this act which I have read to you, and this act now em- 
braces a large amount of other licenses levied upon other property 
in the Territory of Alaska. 

Mr. Byrnes. Do you mean the act of 1915 ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The act of the legislature of 1915. 

Mr. Byrnes. And your contention is that this would repeal the act 
of 1915? i 

Mr. Wickersham. My contention is that if there is not the au- 
thority which they claim for the passage of this act, so far as the 
fisheries are concerned, then there is no authority for the passage 
of it at all, and therefore there should be no authority in the legis- 
lature to pass acts of this kind. 

Mr. Byrnes. But there is no intent or desire expressed here upon 
the part of anyone to repeal that act or to prevent the Territory of 
Alaska from levying taxes upon anything other than the fisheries. 
No one is trying to stop the legislature from levying other taxes. If 
this does not have that effect, then where is the relevancy of your 
objection ? 

Mr. Wickersham. So far as that matter is concerned, what I tried 
to say once before was that if we have ho authority to levy that tax, 
then we have no authority to levy these other taxes. It is relevant, 
so far as that is concerned. 

Mr. Byrnes. Granting; then, that you have the authority, regard- 
less of the litigation now pending, your contention, as I understand 
it, is that the passage of this bill would remove that authority? 

Mr. Wickersham. So far as the fisheries are concerned ; yes. 

Mr. Byrnes. All that this bill seeks to do is to take from "yon that 
authority only so far as the fisheries are concerned. Now, if that is 
true, why do you make that argument as to the other businesses? 

Mr. Wickersham. Simply because, as I have tried to say two or 
three times, if we have no authority to levy a tax upon fisheries we 



240 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

would have no authority to impose other and additional taxes or 
licenses that do not say anything about fisheries. 

Mr. Hardy. I do not think you have made that clear. You are 
not contending that this bill would affect the legality of the act as 
to other taxes upon other matters ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Except fisheries — no ; I am not. 

Mr. Hardy. You are arguing that your Territorial act is valid ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. Probably it is not necessary to do that, 
because that matter is pending in the court. 

Mr. Curry. If the United States Government exercises entire 
authority over the taxation of fisheries, I do not see how that would 
invalidate the act of your legislature, so far as other licenses are 
concerned. 

Mr. Wickersham. I did not say that at all. 

Mr. Byrnes. My idea is this, that we might even concede that that 
act levying the tax heretofore upon fisheries was perfectly proper 
and valid under the laws of the United States and under your Terri- 
torial law ; but all that this bill seeks now to do is to take away from 
you the right to levy it hereafter. 

Mr. Wickersham. It would do so, undoubtedly. 

Mr. Byrnes. Then, the question before this committee is whether 
it is a wise and proper thing to do. What has been done hereto- 
fore and what legislation has been enacted heretofore certainly 
would have no effect. This would not have any retroactive effect. 

Mr. Wickersham. No. 

Mr. Byrnes. It would not invalidate your act of 1915? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; it would, if you repealed the law without 
a saving clause. 

Mr. Byrnes. It would simply apply hereafter. 

Mr. Wickersham. I. have gone over it very carefully, and the 
Supreme Court of the United States has decided that question too 
many times to have any mistake about it. If this bill is passed, as 
it is now presented to the committee, it would repeal the act of the 
Territorial legislature so far as these taxes on fisheries are con- 
cerned. They would fall 

Mr. Byrnes (interposing). That is the purpose, but I do not see 
where your argument is relevant, so far as the taxes on these other 
businesses are concerned, whether you take from Alaska the right 
to tax fisheries or not. 

Mr. Wickersham. I read that section for the purpose of showing 
that we have a general system of this kind in the Territory of 
Alaska, and I do not understand why the fisheries of Alaska should 
not be taxed equally with the other interests in Alaska and by the 
same law. By the same law, passed by Congress itself, you compel 
the meat markets, merchants, and everybody else who does business 
in the Territory of Alaska, to pay a tax of substantially one-half of 
1 per cent. Now, this act proposes to remove them 

Mr. Byrnes (interposing). Your contention is that we should 
not except fisheries and distinguish them from other businesses, 
and cause all the others to contribute to the expenses of the Terri- 
tory, while the fisheries would only contribute to the United States 
fund? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 241 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. Now, Mr. Chairman, the people of 

Alaska know all about this situation, and I want to call your at- 
tention to another phase of it. 

Mr. Hardy. Before you leave that part of the discussion, I want 
to ask you whether this provision in the act of 1900 would have any 
effect upon your argument. A provision of the act approved June 
14, 1900, declares that every person, company, or corporation, carry- 
ing on the business of canning - , curing, or preserving fish, or manu- 
facturing fish products, within the Territory of Alaska, "shall, in 
lieu of all other license fees and taxes hereafter pay license fees on 
their said business output as follows." Then it goes on to prescribe 
the license fees. That is the act of 1900. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is just a repetition, substantially, of the 
taxes levied by the act of 1899. It is the same tax in practically the 
same words, but the phrase you read there was. of course, a new one. 

Mr. Hardy. " In lieu of all other license fees and taxes thereto- 
fore and thereafter." That is in the act of 1900. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. That, of course, was prior to this act of 
1912 creating the legislature, and which they claim gave them au- 
thority to do this 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). This act, of course, would not affect 
the act of 1912, because it is a prior act. 

Mr. Wickersham. Y"es; that has nothing to do with it. 

Now. this matter of taking away from the Territory of Alaska its 
jurisdiction over the fisheries of Alaska is not a new one to the 
people of Alaska. I have the honor to represent them, and very 
briefly I want to call the attention of the committee to some state- 
ments made by officials of the Territory of Alaska in respect of this 
matter. I will be very brief, and the statement I make will go to the 
point. I want to call attention to the fact that the first bill contain- 
ing this clause which we object to was H. E. 22204, introduced in the 
Sixty-second Congress, on March 22, 1912, by Mr. Flood, of Virginia. 
That was followed by an investigation in the Senate, and I have here 
a confidential committee print of a Senate bill, which was given to 
me by one of the Senators. It is marked : 

Tentative draft of bill suggested by United States Bureau of Fisberies and 
the representatives of the various Alaskan fisheries which has been agreed upon 
and prepared by them jointly after numerous conferences. 

Now that was before the Committee on Fisheries in the Senate in 
the Sixty-third Congress, third session. The Flood bill was reintro- 
duced in the Sixty-third Congress, first session, on April 7, 1913, 
and is H. R. 153. " The Carlin bill, H. E. 21007, was introduced on 
the last day of the session of the Sixty-third Congress — that is, on 
the last day of the third session — on legislative day, March 2, and 
calendar day, March 3. It is substantially the same as the Flood 
bill, and it is substantially the same as what we know in Alaska as 
the tentative bill. The Flood bill was reintroduced in the Sixty- 
fourth Congress, first session, and is now pending before the Commit- 
tee on Territories. That bill is H. B. 222. That is the same as this 
bill, with minor changes, and the general objections which go to this 
bill go to all those prior bills. 

Mr. Goodwin. Does the Flood bill seek to divest the Territorial 
Legislature of Alaska of authority to tax fisheries ? 



242 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. Substantially as the bill before this committee 
now does; yes. 

Now, the people of Alaska in convention have denounced this bill, 
and I have here the most recent denunciation of it by a convention in 
Alaska, which I would like to put into the record. It reads as fol- 
lows: 

The Democratic Party is opposed to the taxes on business and trade imposed 
by the National Government within the Territory. This is a function properly 
belonging to the local legislature, and this restriction should be immediately 
removed from our organic act. Under present limitations the legislature is 
compelled to raise the necessary revenues for the administration of the Terri- 
tory by imposing a double tax on trade and industry. The Alaska Legislature, 
under the organic act, has no power to enact legislation regarding the game 
or fish of the Territory. The representatives of the people of Alaska are best 
qualified to enact laws to protect and preserve our game and fish, and this 
power should be extended to the legislature. This is a matter of vital impor- 
tance to every resident of Alaska, and the Democratic Party insists that the 
people of Alaska should have control over one of its greatest resources and 
industries and the National Government should restrict its activities to scien- 
tific investigation. 

Now, a little further down is this statement : 

The foregoing are but some of the undemocratic limitations contained in 
the Wickersham organic act. An enumeration of all the limitations contained 
in and the shortcomings of this act, designed to deceive the people, would fill a 
library. 

I want to call that to the attention of the committee because it is 
the most recent platform adopted by the Democratic Party in Alaska, 
and, as you will discover, they lambasted me because of the limita- 
tions in our organic act. Now, I am standing here to-day doing the 
best I can to convince you gentlemen that they ought not to be there. 

Mr. Goodwin. I thought there was no double taxation, except of 
fisheries and canneries 

Mr. Wickersham. They have the right under this organic act to 
make an additional levy of licenses upon all of this property in 
Alaska. 

Mr. Goodwin. But that has not been done. 

Mr. Wickersham. That has not been done except in the instance 
of canned salmon. 

Mr. Goodwin. Then, why should they complain, if it does not 
exist ? 

Mr. Wickersham. That is for you gentlemen to answer. You have 
heard why they complain about it. They complain of it because 
they say it is undemocratic. They say I am foisting undemocratic 
principles upon them out there. 

Mr. Curry. How are the expenses of the Territorial Government 
met? 

Mr. Wickersham. They are met very largely by levying these 
taxes that I have been talking to you about. 

Mr. Curry. Do these taxes pay the salaries of the governor, the 
judges, and members of the legislature? 

Mr. Wickersham. No, sir ; and that has not been done in any Ter- 
ritory. The Federal Government has always paid the salaries of the 
Territorial officials in every Territory since the first one was or- 
ganized. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 243 

Mr. Curry. What expenses do you pay from the Territorial taxa- 
tion ? 

Mr. Wickersham. We maintain, for instance, at Sitka a chari- 
table home for old people. All of those expenses are paid out of 
the revenues of the government, and anything that we desire to do 
in the way of an extension of legislation within the limits of the 
organic act is to be paid for, of course, by the Territorial legislature. 

Mr. Goodwin. What taxes constitute the school and road taxes? 

Mr. Wickersham. As to the road tax, as I told you, 65 per cent 
of the Alaska fund goes to that, and in addition to that our people 
are taxed $8 each, I think it is, for the maintenance of the roads. 
Eveiy man in Alaska pays the road poll tax, and it amounts to a 
great deal more than what comes for that purpose through the 
Alaska fund. Of course our people pay the money that goes into 
the Alaska flinch 

Mr. Goodwin. From what source does the school tax arise? 

Mr. Wickersham. That comes out of the Alaska fund. Of course 
we have all sorts of government in Alaska ; we have more govern- 
ments in Alaska than you would find in any other region in the world. 
We have governments by governments or governments controlling 
governments. We have two or three different school systems in oper- 
ation in Alaska. The bureau of education has charge of one branch 
of it, the governor of Alaska has charge of another branch, and still 
a third branch is in charge of the people of the incorporated towns. 

Mr. Curry. In the incorporated towns the people pay for the 
public schools? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Curry. The United States pays for the schools, does it not ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No, sir; we pay for them ourselves. That ex- 
pense is paid out of the Alaska fund, and the people of Alaska pay 
the mone^y into the Alaska fund. The Government does not pay 
5 cents into it. The Government spends it through this commission. 
We do not get 25 per cent of the value of the road money we pay 
into the fund, because it is expended by a Government commission 
that sits around Washington for six months every winter 

Mr. Curry (interposing). The people of Alaska do not pay the 
fishery taxes? 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; but the cannery men of Oregon, Washing- 
ton, and California pay them. 

Air. Hardy. Have you a sort of general estimate of the total 
amount of taxes paid by the people of Alaska to this Territorial 
government? I mean taxes that do not go into the Alaska fund. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I have the report of the Territorial treas- 
urer here. I have his statement here and will come to it in a little 
while. 

The Chairman. We would like to have the statement of the 
tren surer of Alaska go into the record. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have.it here and will hand it to you. 

(For the report referred to see p. — .) 

Now, you asked me something about the control of the schools and 
the control of the different governmental functions in the Territory 
of Alaska. I repeat again that we do not have a systemmatic ar- 
rangement of those things in Alaska. We have one branch of our 

46232— pt 4—16 2 



244 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

educational system under the control of the Bureau cf Education, 
another branch is under the governor., while a third branch is under 
the control of the incorporated towns. That is true of all the gov- 
ernmental activities in the Territory of Alaska, and very briefly I 
want to refer to the statement of Secretary Lane about it in his 
discussion of the subject of " Red tape in the government of Alaska," 
which is printed in the hearings before the Committee on Territories 
under the date of June 3-5, 1914, in part 1. He said : 

Alaska's problems are largely peculiar to Alaska. Our present system of 
government there is heterologous. Instead of one government in Alaska, we 
have a number, interlocked, overlapped, combersome, and confusing. 

In their zealousness for the particular parts of the public welfare the> 
represent, the long-distance representatives of bureaus located in Washington 
are opt to lose sight of the fact that they all represent the same interest and 
purpose. 

There is the government of the forests, a government of the fisheries, om 
of the reindeer and natives, another of the cables and telegraphs. There is a 
government for certain public lands and forests, another for other lands and 
forests. 

Each of these governments is intent upon its own particular business, zealous 
of its own success and perogatives, and all are more or less unrelated and inde- 
pendent in their operation. 

Success of the new policy depends very largely upon the administration of 
the laws in the Territory. 

Experience has demonstrated that efficient administration is best secured hy 
centralizing responsibility and authority in the hands of a small number of 
men, who can be held to strict accountability for the results of their actions. 

The proposed development board for Alaska follows this modern and well- 
tested plan for securing efficient administration. 

Mr. Goodwin. Whose function is that? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yours. The Territory can not do it and Con 
gress must clo it. Mr. Lane has been calling attention to this defect, 
and the governor of Alaska and everybody else has been calling 
attention to it, but we can not get anything done, very largely be- 
cause of the Bureau cf Fisheries. In my judgment, the Bureau of 
Fisheries is the greatest stumbling block to-day in the development 
of Alaska. 

Dr. Smith. I would like to challenge that statement. We art 
simply carrying out the wishes of Congress. You are seeking to 
make a goat of use because we are carrying out the laws of Congress. 

The Chairman. I think it is manifest that the Committee, on Ter- 
ritories has jurisdiction of most of those subjects, and they might 
get busy and solve some of the problems themselves. This fisheries 
proposition is quite aside from most of the questions to which our 
attention has been called, and to my mind it is the easiest of solu- 
tion. But whether this is the way to do it or not I do not know. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, Gov. Strong, of Alaska, was 
before the Committee on Territories on May 2, 1916, and this whole 
matter of the fisheries in Alaska was put up to him at that time. 
He was interrogated somewhat with respect to it, and especially 
with respect to the burden which they are groaning about here of 
having to pay too much taxes. The legislature first considered that 
and concluded that they did not pay half as much as the people of 
Alaska paid, and increased their taxes in proportion. Gov. Strong 
says, on page 84 of part 5 of those hearings 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). What is the date? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 245 

Mr. Wickersham. Under date of May 2, 1910. The chairman 
said to him : 

The Chairman. What do you think of the rate levied upon the mining inter- 
ests as compared with the rate levied upon the fisheries? Would the same rate 
be right and proper for each? 

Mr. Strong. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the 
rates levied upon the fisheries are equitable. The fish are there. They are in 
the ocean. They are there for the taking. The man who develops a mine 
takes a great many more chances, in my opinion, in securing dividends upon 
the money he invests than does the man who invests his money in canneries. 
He has got to develop the mine. He may expend hundreds of thousands of 
dollars and then the mine may be a failure. I do believe if any discrimination 
should he made it should be in favor of the mining industries, rather than the 
fisheries. 

Mr. Johnson. When the mine has a certain output, however, that can he 
reached, why should they he taxed one-half of 1 per cent and the canneries 1 
per cent? Take the Treadwell mine; that is not an uncertain proposition. 

Mr. Strong. You have got to bear in mind that the revenue laws of Alaska 
are simply in a process of evolution, and any injustice and inequalities will he 
remedied. Our revenue laws have never been worked out. They are in the 
courts. We have never had an opportunity to readjust them, and, if there be 
inequalities, to eliminate them. 

As I said before, and as I want to repeat, I do not believe that the taxes 
levied by the Territory upon the fisheries industry in Alaska are inequitable. I 
believe they are quite proportionate, when the privileges enjoyed by the men 
who take salmon out of the waters of Alaska are fully considered. I do not 
believe the taxes are oppressive. 

Further on the governor said 

The Chairman (interposing). He was not referring to the act 
passed by the Territorial Legislature of Alaska which doubles the 
taxes? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, yes; he was; he had the whole matter be- 
fore him, because he approved the act as governor of Alaska. 

The Chairman. Was he referring to that act? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

The Chairman. When was his testimony given? 

Mr. Wickersham. Last month, May 2, long after he approved the 
act of the local legislature. Now, the governor says on the next 
page : 

Mr. Strong. It is my opinion that as soon as the machinery necessary for 
the control of the fisheries and their operation could be brought into action that 
they would be better controlled by the Territory than by the Federal Govern- 
ment, and for this reason : The people of Alaska have a vital interest in the 
fisheries of the Territory. They are deeply concerned in the conservation of 
the fisheries, and they are on the ground. They are thoroughly familiar with 
all the conditions, not only in southeastern Alaska, but in western Alaska, and 
in the Yukon country. They could give constant attention and constant super- 
vision to the interests of the people of Alaska. I speak advisedly when I say 
that I believe the wisest legislation that could be enacted for the control and 
even the government of the fisheries business is this sort of legislation, and I 
believe it could be equitably demonstrated to be more profitable than under the 
present system. 

I do not want to be understood as criticizing the Bureau of Fisheries. I be- 
lieve they have done whatever they could under the circumstances. I do not 
want to be understood as criticizing the control by the Bureau of Fisheries, 
which they have heretofore exercised. They have done what they could, con- 
sidering their knowledge of the conditions in that country, and their lack of 
personnel, due to inadequate appropriations. But those things have combined 
to make the process not as satisfactory as could be desired. 



246 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Then I asked him this question : 

Mr. Wickersham. Governor, it is suggested that if the Territorial legislature 
had control of the fisheries of Alaska these nonresident cannery men coming up 
from Seattle and other places in Washington, coming from Oregon and Cali- 
fornia, would not be treated fairly. What do you think about that? 

Mr. Strong. I believe they would be treated just as fairly as any other class 
of men, in or outside of the Territory of Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do you know, from your experience as governor of Alaska, 
of any efforts being made by the Legislature of Alaska or by any number of 
people of the Territory to treat those men unjustly or unfairly? 

Mr. Strong. There has not been a single instance of that kind, so far as I 
know. 

I call that to your attention to show the feeling of those who are 
responsible for government in Alaska — Secretary Lane, Gov. Strong, 
and men of that type — who are familiar with the situation up there 
and who know what ought to be done if anybody does. 

Eight along that line I have telegrams and letters of all kinds in 
opposition to this bill. They are from Nome, Fairbanks, and every- 
where in the Territory of Alaska, from all classes and kinds of 
people. Every organization of people up there, every Democratic 
convention, and every Democrat in the Territory is against this 
bill and against the principle of it. They are against turning these 
great interests over to the Fish Trust. I am not going to take the 
time to read all of those matters, because they can go in the record 
and need not be read now. 

(Said letters and telegrams follow.) 

Chamber of Commerce, 
Seward, Alaska, January 27, 1916. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate in Congress, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir: Inclosed herewith please find a copy of a resolution which be- 
speaks the sentiment of the great majority of the citizens of Alaska. 
Anticipating your support. 
Yours, respectfully, 

Seward Chamber of Commerce, 
By W. H. James, Secretary. 



RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE SEWARD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, JANUARY 26, 1916. 

Whereas Secretary of Commerce Redfield has seen fit to recommend that Con- 
gress repeal that part of section 3 of the organic act of Alaska allowing the 
Territorial legislature to lay license taxes on the fishing industry of Alaska ; 
and 
Whereas the fishing business is Alaska's largest industry at the present time, 
and to exempt it from a license tax would compel the legislature to resort to 
a general property tax for revenue which, under present conditions, would be 
consumed in the cost of collection ; and 
Whereas our organic act now contains more, restrictions than were ever 
imposed in the act of any other American Territory : Therefore be it 
Resolved, That we, the Seward Chamber of Commerce, a representative body 
of business men of the town of Seward, Alaska, protest against the recom- 
mendation of Secretary of Commerce Redfield to Congress to repeal that portion 
of section 3 of the organic act, as above mentioned ; that we hereby insist that 
instead of any further restrictions being imposed upon the Territorial legis- 
lature, the legislature be given additional power ; that we feel that we, the 
citizens of Alaska, are better qualified to take care of Alaska's affairs than any 
bureau, department, board, or commission which may be at present in charge of 
Alaskan affairs, or which may be appointed by the Federal Government in the 
future ; that copies of this resolution be forwarded to Secretary of Commerce 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 247 

Redfield; Hon. James Wiekersham, Delegate in Congress; the chairmen of the 
Committee on Territories of the United States Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives; the Seattle Chamber of Commerce; and other interested organiza- 
tions and individuals. 

Seward Chamber of Commerce, 
By Leon C. Booker, President. 
Attest : 

W. H. James, Secretary. 



Nome, Alaska, February 23, 1916. 
Hon. Jas. Wickersham, 

Delegate from Aaska, Washington, D. C: 

Nome city council protest passage of bills that deprive Territorial legislature 
of power or revenue. Taking- away right to tax fisheries will hamper other 
Undeveloped industries and benefits a trust that does not contribute toward 
the maintenance of local government any manner, but actually decreasing our 
resources. 

Diamond, Mayor. 



RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PETERSBURG COMMERCIAL CLUB FEBRUARY 22, 19 1G. 

Whereas Secretary of Commerce Redfield has seen fit to recommend that 'Con- 
gress repeal that part of section 3 of the organic act of Alaska allowing the 
Territorial legislature to lay license taxes on the fishing industry of Alaska ; 
and 
Whereas the fishing industry is Alaska's largest industry at the present time, 
and to exempt it from a license tax would compel the legislature to resort to 
a general property tax for revenue, which, under present conditions, would 
be consumed in the cost of collection; and 
Whereas our organic act now contains more restrictions than were ever imposed 
in the act of any other American Territory : Therefore be it 
Resolved, That we, the Petersburg Commercial Club, a representative body 
of business men of the town of Petersburg, Alaska, protest against the recom- 
mendation of Secretary of Commerce Redfield that Congress repeal that por- 
tion of section 3 of the organic act as mentioned above ; that we hereby insist 
that instead of any further restrictions being imposed upon the Territorial 
legislature the legislature be given additional power ; that we feel that we, the 
citizens of Alaska, are better qualified to take care of Alaska's affairs than any 
bureau, department, board, or commission which may be at present in charge 
of Alaskan affairs or which may be appointed by the Federal Government in 
the future; that copies of this resolution be forwarded to Secretary of Com- 
merce Redfield ; Hon. James Wickersham, Delegate in Congress ; the' chairmen 
of the Committees on Territories of the United States Senate and House of 
Representatives; the Seattle Chamber of Commerce; and other interested or- 
ganizations and individuals. 



Attest : 

T. S. Elsemore, Secretary. 



Petersburg Commercial Club, 
By Lynn W. Miller, President. 



Nome. Alaska, February 24, 1916. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate from Alaska, Washington, D. C: 
Concerned action on the matter of curtailment of Territorial power to tax 
fisheries resulted in unanimous protest against said action from citizens of the 
peninsular city council and the pioneers of Alaska. Have wired and mailed 
protest to chamber on territories and yourself. Advise if additional action 
desired. 

Nome-Seward Peninsular Chamber of Commerce. 



248 ALASKA FISHEEIES. 

Nome, Alaska, February 19, 1916. 
Hon. James Wickeesham, 

Delegate from Alaska, Washington, D. C: 
Pioneers of Alaska at Nome unanimously oppose the exclusion of the Alaska 
fish industry from Territorial taxation. Maintenance of Territorial govern- 
ment difficult if National Government appropriates our sources of revenue. 
Heartily indorse your opposition to Alexander bill. Advise us if we can be 
of any service to you. 

Pioneers of Alaska, Committee on Resolutions. 



Fairbanks, Alaska, February 5, 1916. 
Hon. James Wickeesham, 

Delegate from. Alaska, Washington, D. C: 
The Fairbanks Commercial Club by resolution protest against passing of 
the proposed amendment of section 3 of enabling act wherein it is attempted 
to take the power from the Alaska Legislature to levy taxes on fisheries in 
Alaska. Copy of foregoing sent chairman of Committee on Territories. 
Fisheries also refiled. 

Fairbanks Commercial Club. 

Mr. Wickeesham. I have here a letter, however, Mr. Chairman, 
from the attorney general of Alaska, who is an appointee of Gov. 
Strong and who is conducting all of this litigation in behalf of 
the Territory of Alaska against these cannery men who won't pay 
their taxes. He wrote a letter on December 30, 1915, to Judge 
Houston, chairman of the Committee on Territories, and I want it 
to go in the record. I think I will read it to you ; it is not long and 
it takes up this matter of taxation. I am going to deal with that 
first and then the matter of monopoly : 

December 30, 1915. 
Hon. W, C. Houston, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : Secretary Redfield in his report to the Congress strongly recom- 
mends the repeal of that portion of section 3 of the organic act of the Territory 
of Alaska (act of Aug. 24, 1912) permitting the Territorial legislature to lay a 
license tax upon the fishing industry in Alaska. This is a matter of very great 
importance to the people of this Territory, and such must be my excuse for 
troubling you with this letter. 

I shall not take up in details the arguments advanced by the honorable Sec- 
retary in favor of the proposed repeal. The gist of it is that he fears such 
hostile legislation from the Territorial legislature as will render unprofitable 
or destroy the fishing business. To this, it is hardly necessary to point out, 
there are two complete and sufficient answers. 

First. That the people of Alaska are vitally interested in the preservation of 
the fisheries as their greatest industry and one of the most permanent sources 
of future wealth and development. They, above all others, are most interested 
in its preservation. And, with all due respect to the honorable Secretary and 
the Bureau of Fisheries, the people of Alaska, at least on the coast, understand 
the problems involved far better than does the department or the bureau. 

Second. Any bill passed by the legislature injurious to the fishing industry 
could be either vetoed by the governor or disapproved by the Congress. 

Now, let me state as briefly as I can the Territory's side of the question. As 
I said before, the fishing business is our largest industry, the products from 
which approximate $20,000,000 in value annually. To deny the right of the 
Territory to tax it will result in largely increasing the amount of taxes that 
must be paid by the rest of the people. In short, the just proportion of main- 
taining a Territorial government properly chargeable to the fishermen will be 
borne by others. If such a situation is to be brought about, I believe the 
people of Alaska would prefer that the Congress at once repeal the organic act 
and put us back where we were for so long — governed by bureaus and carpetbag 
appointees, aided by such little attention as the Congress, with its multiplicities 
of duties and necessary want of first-hand information, could give us. As it 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 249 

stands, the organic act contains more restrictions upon the powers of the Legis- 
lature than were ever inserted in the organic act of any other Territory, And 
to have those restrictions still further increased at the recommendation of a. 
bureau 5.000 miles away on the ground, principally, that we would deliberately 
or ignorantly destroy our greatest asset and that we need the protecting care 
of that bureau would add only insult to injury. 

The people of Alaska need no such protecting care. They are composed of 
the people of your State and of every State represented in the Congress — 
Americans all — with the American love of self-government, and the American 
desire to work out their own problems and their own destiny ; and I might add, 
the American dislike of bureaucracy. If given the chance by Congress we will 
do that; if we make mistakes, as no doubt we will, we ourselves will be the 
first to feel and see them, and ourselves will correct them in the good old 
American way. and as the States from Maine to California and from Wash- 
ington to Florida have done, and grown the stronger and better for it. 

Now, a few words as to the method of taxation employed. 

One of the most serious problems confronting the Alaska Legislature was 
to devise a system of revenue. The organic act empowered both the laying of 
license taxes and a general property tax, the latter not to exceed one per cent 
upon the valuation. Owing to the vast area of Alaska, its scattered popula- 
tion, and the difficulty and expense of travel, it was decided by the legislature 
that a general property tax was for the present impracticable, it being esti- 
mated that the collection of such a tax would cost 60 per cent of the whole 
tax levied. We were familiar, however, with the system of license taxes in 
force under the acts of Congress for the past 17 years. The collection of such 
a tax, it was estimated, would not exceed 5 per cent of the taxes levied. 

It was further found that under such a system the taxes would fall princi- 
pally upon those industries best able to bear the burden. A bill was accord- 
ingly introduced, modeled largely upon the aforesaid acts of Congress. In fixing 
the schedules, the matter of the tax on the fisheries was referred to Mr. J. R. 
Heckman, a member of the house of representatives, and for many years con- 
nected with the Alaska Packers' Association, the largest concern of the kind 
in Alaska, if not in the world. The rate finally agreed upon and to which Mr. 
Heckman assented as fair and just, was 4 cents per case on the red and king, 
the highest priced grade of fish ; 2 cents per case on pinks, the second grade ; 
and 1 cent per case on all the other and cheaper grades; $100 per annum on 
fish traps, and $1 per 100 fathoms of gill net. This tax will produce approxi- 
mately $100,000 per annum from an output of approximately $19,000,000 worth 
of fish, or a shade over one-half of 1 per cent. And it is this tax which the 
honorable Secretary fears will destroy or render unprofitable the fishing industry 
of Alaska. 

If the Congress should pass the amendment recommended, it would inevi- 
tably compel the next legislature to resort to a general property tax at the 
maximum rate, and unless Congress forbade the taxing of the property of the 
cannerymen also, they would still pay as much, if not more money in taxes 
than they do now, and at least half of it would be consumed in expenses and 
do no good to either the Territory or the fishing industry. Yet surely the 
Secretary would not insist that millions of dollars worth of property in the 
Territory be entirely exempted from Territorial taxation. 

I fully concur in what the honorable Secretary lias to say of the objections 
to double taxation for local purposes; but the remedy is not to deprive the 
people of Alaska of the power of raising revenue tor their local needs, but for 
Congress to repeal the license-tax law of 1898, thereby remitting to the Terri- 
tory the entire subject of local taxes, where it legitimately belongs under our 
system of government. 

I hope you will pardon me the liberty I have taken in addressing you at some 
length ; but the question seemed to Jiie to be SO important, so fraught with 
potential evil for the people of this rapidly growing Territory, that I deemed 
it a duty to protect and to do whatever I could to prevent the legislation 
recommended by the honorable Secretary. 
I am sir. very truly, yours, 

J. H. Cobb, 
Chief Counsel for the Territory of Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. Did I understand you some time ago to say that the 
poll tax in Alaska was $6? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir ; I think so. although it may be $4. 



250 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Aldrich. The poll tax has been repealed. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Territorial tax is repealed; but the con- 
gressional tax, has that been repealed? 

Mr. Aldrich. The first legislature of 1913 repealed it. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was repealed in 1913. It was in force, then, 
from 1899 to 1913. 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was in force for 14 years. 

The Chairman. You do not pav any poll tax at all in Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. Apparently not. It was $8 when it was re- 
pealed. 

Mr. Curry. It is a good thing you repealed it. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, immense sums were gathered from it and 
put into roads. 

Mr. CuRRr. But you should tax property and not men. 

Mr. Wickersham. I agree with you, but that is the way it was 
done; it was a tax put on by Congress and the Legislature of Alaska 
repealed it. 

Mr. Curry. Was that poll tax, which you say the United States 
Government levied, carried in the organic act ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. It was levied by an act of Congress passed 
in 1904. Congress levied a poll tax of $8 on every person in Alaska. 

Mr. Aldrich. Outside of incorporated towns ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; outside of incorporated towns. We have 
here before us at least one gentleman 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing). Before you conclude your statement 
I would like to know, and I suspect the committee would like to 
know, something about the so-called trust up there, or monopoly. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I will get to it in a very short time. 

Mr. Goodwin. And what evidence and proof there is of that. 

Mr. Wickersham. I will get to it in a very brief space of time. 
There is at least one gentleman here from Seattle doing all he can 
to get this bill passed through this committee and through Congress, 
but the business interests of Seattle are opposed to this bill. I want 
to call your attention to just two letters from two organizations 
representing the greatest business interests of the Pacific coast in 
opposition to this bill. The first one is from the Seattle Commercial 
Club, the largest commercial organization of that kind, I suppose, in 
that northwest country. The letter is dated December 18, 1915, and 
reads as follows: 

December 18, 1915. 
'rfon. James Wickersham, 

United States Congress, Washington, D. V. 

My Dear Mr. Wickersham : We take much pleasure in informing you that 
the Seattle Commercial Club, in regular session Tuesday evening, December 14, 
unanimously indorsed your stand in matters now pending before Congress. I 
am taking the liberty of inclosing you marked copies of our weekly bulletin 
relative to the same. Now, should there be any particular piece of legislation 
you would like to have our organization " get behind " other than the things we 
have referred to, you would have but to call our attention to the same. 

Expressing the hope that you may enjoy all the blessings of the season, we 
remain, 

Very truly, yours, 

Seattle Commercial Club, 
Otto A. Case, 

Executive Secretary. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 251 

And the record referred to is this: 

PROTECTIN-O ALASKA'S FISHERIES. 

Indorsing Delegate Wickersham's action in opposing the Tones bill, now 
known in Congress as H. R. 21607, the club Tuesday night wont on record as 
opposing any legislation which seeks to grant perpetual fishing rights along the 
coast of Alaska. The ground for such opposition is that such rights would be 
detrimental to the interests of permanent settlers in the Territory and would 
be to the benefit of a few instead of the many. 

The fact that the people of Alaska returned Mr. Wickersham as Alaska's 
Delegate by a very heavy vote is sufficient proof of their indorsement of his 
policy in the matter, as it is well known that he has fought the perpetual right 
men at every stage of the game. Over a year ago Mr. Wickersham delivered a 
speech before the club in which he outlined his position on the subject. The 
club has upheld him in his Alaska policy ever since that time and will continue 
to do all within its power to aid him in Ins fight to prevent the tying up, for 
private benefit, of the natural resources of the northland. 

It is to that particular part of it I want to call your attention. The 
Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which is the other big organization in 
the State of Washington, adopted this resolution: 

ALASKA ENTITLED TO IT'LL MEASURE OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT. 

Whereas the national resources of Alaska are now administered by numerous 
bureaus of the Government, under the direction of officials unfamiliar with 
conditions in Alaska, which has resulted in inefficiency, confusion, and cur- 
tailment of the development of Alaska : It is hereby 
Resolved by the Alaska bureau of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, That 

the administration of all national resources in Alaska, other than those of 

scientific research, should be placed in a board resident in Alaska ; it is further 
Resolved, That Congress be urged to grant to the people of Alaska as full a 

Territorial form of government and measure of home rule as was granted to our 

other Territories. 

Adopted by the Alaska bureau, Seattle Chamber of Commerce, March 13, 

1916. 

T. L. McPherson, Manager. 

Adopted by trustees of Seattle Chamber of Commerce, March 28, 1916. 

C. B. Yandell, Executive Secretary. 

I call your attention to those because the people of the whole coast 
are in opposition to this effort to monopolize and control these fish- 
eries. 

You want to know something about the monopoly up there. I will 
tell you about it right now. But before I do that, Mr. Chairman, let 
me just call your attention to this one other matter. It was said 
before the Committee on Territories that canned salmon is one of 
the great food supplies of this country which has never increased in 
price; that the price to the people has always been maintained at 
about the same figure and never changed. That was substantially 
the statement made. I have here Bulletin 181, issued by the United 
States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Eoyal 
Meeker, commissioner, which gives the wholesale prices of various 
commodities. It is a bulletin issued in the pholesale-price series 
and covers the period from 1890 to 1014. On page 137 is fish, canned 
salmon. It starts in with the year 1890, and the average price per 
dozen cans is given at $1.61 and a fraction. Upon the basis of 100 
the relative price is 111.1. It runs year by year from 1890 at $1.04 
to $2.22 in 1911. I want to put that in the record without reading it 



252 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

any further to the committee. It proves that the price of canned 
salmon is going up steadily, year by year, although these people do 
not pay one cent more tax than they paid in 1899, except the tax 
levied by the Territorial legislature, which has not been paid. 

Mr. Hardy. Did the price of canned salmon go up during the year 
1907 and along in that period of depression? 

Mr. Wickersham. In 1906 the price was $1.68, in 1907 it was 
$1.66, in 1908 it was $1.92, in 1909 it was $1.70, in 1910 , 1.71, in 
1911 it jumped to $2.10, and in 1911 it was $2.22. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is that per case? 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; that is by the dozen cans. 

Mr. Goodwin. $2.22? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; per dozen cans. 

Mr. Goodwin. How many cans are contained in a case? 

Mr. Wickersham. There are 48 cans in a case. 

Mr. Goodwin. Of 1 pound each ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Warren. That means the jobber's price, does it not? It 
does not mean the price at which the canners sold, because the high- 
est price at which salmon has sold at any time is $2.10 a dozen for a 
special brand, so that those figures could not be correct from the can- 
nery standpoint. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have this letter from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics of the Department of Labor, under date of March 25, 1916 : 

March 25, 1916. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate from Alaska, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Wickersham : In response to your request by telephone and 
your letter of March 24, asking for information regarding the prices of canned 
salmon carried in the Wholesale Price Bulletin, issued by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, I am inclosing a table showing month by month price fluctuations 
for the years 1914 and 1915 of Columbia River Chinook fancy and Alaska 
red salmon. 

We have carried Chinook fancy ever since 1890, but this year the dealers 
informed us that Chinook fancy is no longer the predominant brand and 
advised that we carry instead Alaska red. We have accordingly substituted 
Alaska red for Chinook fancy and have obtained prices running back through 
1914. 

The list price of Alaska red salmon is considerably lower than the list price 
of the Chinook fancy. Assuming that the relative price of Alaska red in 1914 
was the same as the relative price of Chinook fancy, namely, 151, you will 
see that the relative price in 1915 has gone up to 155.1. while the relative 
price for December, 1915, is 108.1. The figures certainly show that the Alaska 
red is a much more active commodity than Chinook fancy, as the price fluctu- 
ates considerably and has a strong tendency upward. Chinook fancy is evi- 
dently a high-priced article that is not consumed widely and. therefore, has 
remained constant in price since the beginning of 1913. All the evidence goes 
to show that Alaska red reflects accurately the conditions of the market for 
canned salmon, whereas Chinook fancy reflects nothing at all. 

Unfortunately, all of the material that I had gathered together bearing 
upon the salmon industry of Alaska was turned over to Mr. Squires when he 
was sent to Alaska on the wage dispute on the Government railroad being 
constructed there. 

I think it would repay you to make inquiries at the Department of Agricul- 
ture. If my memory serves me right, a very useful bulletin dealing with the 
salmon industry has been issued by one of the bureau of that department. 

Hoping that the information I submit may be of use to you, I am, 
Tours, sincerely, 

Royal Meeker, 
Commissioner of Labor Statistics. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



253 



With that is inclosed a table in relation to canned salmon, com- 
piled from quotations published on the first of each month by the 
Journal of Commerce and the Commercial Bulletin. New York 
City, and this table shows that as to the Alaska reds the price fluctu- 
ates considerably, as he says, but beginning in January. 1013, it was 
$1.3375 and in December, 1915, $1,625. 

(Said table follows.) 

Canned salmon. 

[Compiled from quota) ions published on the first of each month in the Journal of Commerce and Commercia 

Bulletin, New York City.] 



Year and month. 



January . . 
February. 

March 

April. . .. 



June 

July 

August 

September , 
October . . . 
November. 
December . 



Columbia 

River, 

Chinook fancy, 

tails, Is. 



Aver- 
age 

price 

per 

dozen 

cans. 



S2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 22^0 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 



Rela- 
tive 
price. 



151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 



Alaska, red. 



Aver- 
age 

price 
per 

dozen 

cans. 



$1.4604 
1.3375 
1.3500 
1. 3500 
1.3375 
1. 4500 
1. 4750 
1. 4750 
1. 4375 
1. 6125 
1.6125 
1. 6125 
1.4750 



Rela- 
tive 
price. 



151.0 
138.3 
139.5 
139.5 
138.3 
149.9 
152.5 
152.5 
148.6 
166. 7 
166.7 
166.7 
152.5 



Year and month. 



1915 

January . . . 
Februa'ry. . 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July.. 

August 

September. 
October.. . 
November. 
December. 



Columbia 

River, 

Chinook fancy, 

tails, Is. 



Aver- 
age 

price 
per 

dozen 

cans. 



2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 
2. 2250 

( l ) 

0) 



Rela- 
tive 
price. 



151. 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 
151.0 

C 1 ) 

0) 



Alaska, red. 



Aver- 
age 

price 
per 

dozen 

cans. 



1. 5000 
1.4750 
1.4750 
1.4750 
1.4750 
1. 4250 
1. 4500 
1. 4500 
1.4750 
1. 5375 
1. 5750 
1. 5625 
1. 6250 



Rela- 
tive 
price. 



155.1 
152.5 
152. 5 
152.5 
152.5 
147.4 
149.9 
149.9 
152.5 
159. 
162.8 
161.6 
168.1 



1 No quotation for month. 



Mr. Goodw t in. To what do you ascribe that increase in price — to the 
arbitrary will of the so-called monopoly? 

Mr. Wickersham. Absolutely. I conducted the hearings before the 
Fisheries Committee in the Senate. You have a copy of them here, 
Mr. Chairman. Those hearings were held something like three 
3 r ears ago. 

The Chairman. 1912, I think. 

Air. Wickersham. Four years ago. They put the New York man- 
ager for J. K. Armsby on the witness stand for the Alaska Packers' 
Association, which is one of the big trusts in Alaska fish. Mr. Alpin 
testified that he ran a big business as the seller of canned salmon 
and as the representative of the Alaska Packers' Association in 
XeAv York. Mr. Warren told you a little while ago about the opening- 
price, and I asked Mr. Alpin who fixed the opening price, and he said 
he did. It is all in his testimony in that hearing. 

I asked him Iioav he fixed it. He said -he took into consideration 
the output of salmon, and went on to tell that he consulted with the 
Alaska Packers' Association and its people, and determined what 
he thought ought to be a fair price, and that he then fixed that price 
for them. I asked him if he fixed it the year before or the second 
year before that— I am not quite sure, but I will call your attention 
before I am through to the exact evidence — and he said " Yes." I 
asked him Iioav much canned salmon the Alaska Packers' Association 



254 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

had. that year, and he told me that they had a large quantity of reds 
but they had only a few of the cheaper varieties or very little. Then, 
I asked him to tell the price he fixed on reds. He said he fixed the 
price very high on reds and fixed the price very low on all the other 
canned salmon, and every one of the little canned-salmon men in 
Alaska went busted that year because of the price fixed by J. K. 
Armsby for the Alaska Packers' Association. That is the first story 
of the trust in Alaska, and that is the way they do things. 

Mr. Goodwin. During this period of increase in price was there 
any increased demand for fish or any decreased supply of fish? 

Mr. Wickersham. Oh, they sell all they can put out. 

Mr. Goodwin. Was the demand greater than it had been and the 
supply less than it had been? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know, but they sell all of it, because the 
price is constantly increasing. 

Mr. Goodwin. At the outset of your statement you said you objected 
to this bill not only because it would deprive the legislature of the 
right and power to tax the fisheries of Alaska, but for the additional 
reason that the bill seeks to turn over the fisheries of that country to 
the Fish Trust. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Goodwin. So far as I am concerned I should like to hear you 
upon that proposition — how this bill seeks to do that ? 

Mr. Hardy. I know you are going into that subject anyhow, and 
while you are on this point of supply and demand I want to ask 
you this question: Is it not a fact that the production of fish in 
Alaska is increasing every year and that in the last statistical year 
they had an output of some twenty millions? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. Does not that indicate that the supply is rather tend- 
ing to increase? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I think it does. 

Mr. Hardy. Do you know whether the supply has been increased 
or decreased in the last few years? 

Mr. Wickersham. They have been increasing the output. 

Mr. Hardy. That is, the supply to the market? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Goodwin. Has the demand been increased? 

Mr. Wickersham. I judge so, because the price has increased. 

Mr. Goodwin. Of course, the higher the price the less the con- 
sumption. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not think there is any difficulty in selling 
all of it. 

The Chairman. We have antitrust laws galore. Do you think the 
Legislature of Alaska would be any more potential in destroying the 
fish trust than would the Government itself? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I do, because the Government has left 
there for 25 years a situation which has induced monopoly. 

The Chairman. You have the Territorial courts and you have the 
laws ; why do you not get busy and oppose the trust ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, because Congress has the absolute con- 
trol and has the responsibility, and everything, upon its shoulders. 

The Chairman. Oh, no. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 255 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; you have. You appoint every one of the 
officials; they are your officials, they are not ours; you appoint the 
governor; you appoint the United States district attorney: you 
appoint everybody up there; you pass the laws; and you especially 
restrain us from passing any. Noav, you want to know something 
about the trust. I have here an indictment against the Booth Fish- 
eries Co., and I am only going to read the caption : 

United Stales of America, plaintiff, v. Booth Fisheries Co., a corporation or- 
ganized under the laws of the State of Delaware; Booth Fisheries Co., organized 
under the laws of the State of Washington; the Chlopeck Fish Co. (Inc.), a 

corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington; International 
Fisheries Co., a corporation organized \mder the laws of the State of Wash- 
ington ; San Juan Fishing & Packing Co., a corporation organized under the 
laws of the State of Washington; Occidental Fish Co., a corporation organized 
under the laws of the State of Washington ; A. B. Carpenter, W. T. Chutter, 
William Calvert, jr., H. O. Roberts, and W. J. Maddock, the Christian names of 
each of said persons being to the grand jurors unknown, defendants. 

This indictment was found in the May term, 1914, No. 2T91, in 
the United States District Court for the Western District of Wash- 
ington, Northern Division. It is signed by Hon. Clay Allen, who 
is the Democratic United States district attorney, appointed by Mr. 
Wilson. He is a good lawyer, a good official, and he wants to do his 
duty all the time, but he can not do it. 

The Chairman. What is the obstacle in his way? 

Mr. Wickersham. I will read what is the obstacle in the way from 
Mr. Allen's letter. In a letter addressed to me on December 31, 1915, 
which I will exhibit to the committee 

The Chairman (interposing). Is that the district attorney's letter? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; I do not want to put it all in the record, 
but I will exhibit it to the committee. In the letter he says: 

If I could convince myself that the hazard of a criminal trial in this com- 
munity, with its possible or even probable results, would have the effect of 
doing a great good, which yon profess to see in that result, I would probably 
reach the conclusion which you have, that the criminal case should be tried, 
without further consideration of the plan which I have outlined to you. As 
suggested in my former letter, I know this community in the same close and 
intimate way you are acquainted with Alaska. I have already been through 
one of the navy yard cases lasting. 20 days; the Munday case, which lasted 2S 
days ; and the Tape case, which dragged its weary length over 20 days ; and I 
know just the extremes to which powerful interests in this community can and 
will go to prevent a fair and impartial trial of a case of the importance which 
the Booth case would be to them. 

The Chairman. What community does he speak of? 

Mr. Wickersham. Seattle, Wash. That is where this Fish Trust 
has its headquarters; that is exactly where the Booth Fisheries has 
its big headquarters, although it has tentacles all over the United 
States and in Canada. It is a great Fish Trust. 

Mr. Goodwin. Could not this Fish Trust be indicted in the Terri- 
tory of Alaska, where jurisdiction would obtain? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know that the courts in Alaska have 
jurisdiction, because its headquarters are in Seattle. 

Mr. Goodwin. He claims that owing to powerful interests he can 
not get fair and impartial trials. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. All of these companies reside at Seattle 
and their business is all conducted from there ; the trust is there. 



256 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

They manage the fisheries of Alaska from Seattle and not from 
Alaska. 

Mr. Goodwin. If the indictment had been drawn in Alaska and 
jurisdiction obtained there instead of Seattle, could there have been 
a conviction in Alaska rather than at Seattle? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know ; but we would arrange our laws 
in Alaska so that there would not be that situation. 

The Chairman. Let us look at it from a practical standpoint. If 
you were to prosecute in Alaska, they would still have their offices in 
Seattle, as they do now. If they have their canneries in Alaska and 
their agents in Alaska, why can they not be indicted in the courts of 
Alaska and tried before Alaskan juries? Why can not that be done? 

Mr. Wickersham. Because the combination is at Seattle. The 
Chlopeck Co., for instance, does not do business in Alaska; these 
various other concerns do business at Seattle, but they do the Alaska 
fishing business. This refers only to the halibut fisheries. 

The Chairman. It is your opinion, then, that the courts of Alaska 
would not have jurisdiction to prosecute this trust? 

Mr. Wickersham. It is, because the members do not reside there 
and the jurisdiction is not perfected in Alaska ; it is in Washington. 

The Chairman. Although their business is in Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. Suppose Congress should divest itself of this power 
and turn it over to Alaska, in what way could Alaska reach the trust ? 

Mr. Wickersham. You can not divest yourself of all the responsi- 
bility, because under the Constitution you have control of the Terri- 
tories. 

Mr. Goodwin. I mean so far as levying taxes on the fisheries, in 
what way could you reach the trust? 

Mr. Wickersham. We could indict them the same as in the city 
of Seattle. 

Mr. Goodwin. You say that they have their habitat in Seattle and 
that jurisdiction would not attach to Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. That is true in this case, I think. 

The Chairman. Suppose Congress should just turn over the entire 
jurisdiction to the courts of Alaska, how would you get jurisdiction 
of the trust if it had its habitat in Seattle ? 

Mr. Wickersham. You would not. 

The Chairman. You would not l*e in any better situation? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; but the United States District Court of 
Alaska can indict the trust the same as the district court in Seattle. 
They do not have their habitat there ; they live in Seattle or Portland. 

Mr. Hardy. What does the habitat mean — if they have a habitat 
or no habitat they can be brought to trial ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The indictment connected with this Fish Trust 
shows that it is just as close as the threads of a ball are woven. They 
were indicted up there, but 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing). Does all this mean that the Govern- 
ment of the United States and of the Territory of Alaska are futile 
in the hands of the trust and that there is no remedy ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It does not mean that there is no remedy. 

Mr. Goodwin. It is a deplorable state of affairs? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. If this committee will study the situ- 
ation in Alaska as Secretary Lane and the governor of the Terri- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 257 

p 

tory and everybody who knows the situation in Alaska, they would 
appreciate that it is the worst possible government in the world. 

Mr. Goodwin. It" the courts are powerless, what remedy would you 
suggest? 

Mr. WickebshAm. The courts are not powerless, We are getting 
far afield of what I was going to say. 

The Chairman, As I understand, the courts and juries are under 
the influence of the trust, and hence the Government is impotent to 
enforce the law? 

Mr. Wickersham. I did not say anything of that kind. 

The Chairman. That is what the attorney seems to suggest with 
reference to the courts in Seattle. 

Mr. Wickersham. I read you exactly what he said. 

The Chairman. That is what I inferred. 

Mr. Curry. Do you think that in the city of Seattle, with 200,000 
or 300,000 pretty good American citizens, that it is impossible for 
the United States Government to secure a fair prosecution of the 
Fish Trust or anything else? The district attorney is appointed by 
the President of the United States, the judge is appointed by the 
President of the United States, and the officials who go and bring 
in the jurors are United States officials, and with between 200,000 
and 300,000 pretty good American citizens do you believe that they 
can not get a jury that will do justice? 

Mr. Wickersham. I have lots of confidence in the people, but the 
trust representatives are both cunning and powerful. 

Mr. Curry. And how about the district attorney? 

Mr. Wickersham. I can tell you all about that when I learn what 
this committee does with this bill. 

Mr. Curry. The district attorney, the judge, and the men who go 
out and draw the jury are corrupt men? 

Mr. Wickersham. T did not say anything of that kind ; you are 
saying all of that. 

Mr. Curry. You did sa} r that they could not secure a conviction? 

Mr. Wickersham. I did not say that ; I read from the letter of the 
United States district attorney who has the matter in charge. 

Mr. Goodwin. Has there been any case showing the supremacy of 
the trust and the impotency of the courts upon which the district 
attorney predicates that letter? 

Mr. Wickersham. He mentions that in what I read to you. 

Mr. Byrnes. With the increase in the price of gasoline, following 
the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust, do you think that if they 
should dissolve the Fish Trust the price of salmon would go up ? 

Mr. Wickersham. You gentlemen are arguing. You know all 
about trusts, and how vigorously they grow, as well as I do. 

Mr. Hardy. While the body of the people may be good, and prob- 
ably the officers are earnest in their efforts to enforce the law, secret 
influences catch a man. and you do not know when they make up a 
jury Avhether it contains a representative of the trust or not. 

Mr. Wickersham. And you do not know when you have them 
right around this table whispering into your ear. 

Mr. Greene. Who is the district attorney? 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Clay Allen. 

Mr. Greene. How long has he been in the office? 



258 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. He was appointed by Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Greene. He should be the man to prosecute that trust, because 
the Democratic Party claims that it is the great enemy of the trusts. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was the same under the ^Republican Party 
as it is under the Democratic Party — it has never changed. 

In the midst of the indictment is this statement : 

That the purposes to be effected by said unlawful conspiracy were — 

(a) To control and limit the supply and to control, and depress the price 
of halibut shipped in boxes from Alaska to the markets of Seattle and Tacoma, 
Wash. 

(b) To control and limit the supply and depress and otherwise control the 
price of halibut produced by the defendants and independent fishermen and 
offered in the halibut markets of Seattle and Tacoma, Wash. 

(c) To control the price paid by independent halibut brokers by making 
exorbitant and unreasonable bids against the independent brokers from time 
to time. 

(d) To control the price paid for halibut by the refusal to bid against the 
other defendants herein and by the offer of collusive and fraudulent bids 
among themselves. 

(e) To control the distribution of halibut in the markets of the cities of the 
several States by concealment of stock ownership and control among them- 
selves and by the maintenance of pretended competition. 

(/) To control the prices paid by offering for sale from time to time, in 
the several States, halibut purchased and obtained by collusive bids and offered 
in competition with halibut purchased under normal conditions of trade. 

(g) To control the prices paid and refraining from good faith competition 
in the markets severally allotted by agreement among themselves. 

(h) To control the halibut marekts in the cities of the several States by in- 
timidation and coercion of independent brokers to maintain and support prices 
fixed by themselves. 

And on the very last page the indictment winds up : 

And the grand jurors aforesaid upon their oaths do further present that 
each and all of the several acts of the several defendants herein set forth was 
with the common purpose, design, intent, and effect of unlawfully and un- 
reasonably restraining the commerce of the United States and between the 
several States, the Dominion of Canada, and the Territory of Alaska within 
the meaning of the act of Congress of the United States of July 2, 1890, the 
same being chapter 647, Twenty-sixth Statutes at Large, page 209, and being 
entitled "An act to protect commerce against unlawful restraints and monopo- 
lies," first herein more particularly mentioned, contrary to the form of the 
statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of 
the" United States of America. 

Clay Allen, 
United States District Attorney. 

Mr. Greene. What is the date of that indictment ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It was filed in the May term, 1914, and it is 
indictment No. 2791. 

Mr. Goodwin. That case has not yet come to trial ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No. 

The Chairman. That is in the United States district court at 
Seattle? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy. If I understand the purport of the letter you read 
from Mr. Allen, you had been suggesting to him to bring that case to 
trial, and he wrote that letter as his reason for not wanting an im- 
mediate trial? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. The reasons seem to me to be very good. 
The members of the committee can examine that letter if they wish 
to do so. 



ALASKA FISHERIES; 259 

Mr. (Ykky. For my information, and also for the information of 
the other members of the committee, has that trial been postponed at 
the request of the defendants or of the Government? 

Mr. Wickersham. That I do not know. 

Mr. Curry. The indictment refers to salmon fisheries? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; halibut alone. These same people put up 
more than (500,000 cases of salmon per annum. 

Mr. Curry. They were not indicted on account of the salmon? 

Mr. Wickersham. No, sir. They have escaped on that so far, but 
they are just as guilty on that as on the other; there is absolutely no 
question about that. 

Mr. Hardy. 1 do not want you to omit or overlook the proposi- 
tion under which you maintain that the result of this law would be 
to help formulate the trust? 

Mr. Wickersham. That will come right along in a minute, just 
as soon as I can get more evidence in relation to the trust before you. 

The Northwestern Fisheries Co., which belong to the Booth Co. 
noAV, in 1913 put up 311,727 cases of salmon — kings, reds, chums, 
pinks, and bluebacks — in Alaska. In addition, they now own the 
Gorman and other Alaska canneries. 

Mr. Chairman, in Poor's Manual of Industrials, 1915, is a state- 
ment made by the Booth Fisheries Co. which I want to put into the 
record, because it goes to the point of showing the combination and 
the purchases of these salmon canneries in Alaska which is going 
on all the time. The Booth Fisheries Co. is the greatest Fish Trust 
in the world. It is buying the salmon canneries in Alaska now. It 
has its maps made and filed either in the Department of Commerce 
or in the recorder's office in Alaska, or it is in possession of so many 
of these fishing sites in Alaska that if this bill shall pass it will 
assume at once a substantial control and ownership of the trap sites 
in Alaska, which means the fisheries of Alaska. That is the pur- 
pose for which I am calling attention to this matter. 

On page 172 of Poor's Manual, under the head " Booth Fisheries 
Co.," it says: 

Incorporated May 10, 1909, in Delaware ; became purchasers at receiver's 
sale of all assets of A. Booth & Co.. Chicago, 111., formally taking possession 
thereof on May 24, 1909. The company is engaged in buying and selling, at 
wholesale and retail, fish, oysters, and all sea foods, and has a large fleet of 
fishing boats oh the Great Lakes and Pacific Ocean. The company operates in 
over 70 cities of the United States, including New York, Philadelphia, Balti- 
more, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, St. 
Paul, Minneapolis, Denver, and Duluth. Owns four public cold-storage plants 
and also cold-storage plants for the freezing and caring of its own fish at 
nearly all of its branches. Owns real estate and buildings in several cities 
upon which its branches and cold-storage plants are located, 117 steamships, 
tugs, etc., and 571 sailing boats, barges, etc. 

I am calling this to your attention in order to show that the Booth 
Fisheries Co. is not one of the small concerns which does not seem 
to be in favor. 

On April 1, 1911, purchased the entire capital stock and assets of the North- 
western Fisheries Co., a Washington corporation, owning a fleet of boats and 
12 fishing plants on the Alaskan coast. To finance this purchase, provide addi- 
tional cash working capital, and redeem $1,425,000 of its debenture bonds 
then outstanding, the stockholders authorized a $5,000,000 sinking fund 6 
per cent debenture bond issue, due April 1, 1926, and sold $4,000,000 thereof. 

46232— pt 4—16 3 



260 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

In 1912 the entire capital stock of the International Fisheries Co. (Tacoma, 
Wash.) was acquired. 

Indictments. — The Federal grand jury at Seattle, Wash., on July 15, 1914, 
returned indictments under the Sherman antitrust law against the company 
and others, forming the so-called Halibut Trust, which is stated to control 
most of the halibut caught in the northern Pacific and northern Atlantic 
Oceans and the Bering Sea, and sold in the United States. Conspiracy is 
alleged to control and limit the catch and output of fish. Those mentioned in 
the indictments include the Booth Fisheries Co., of Maryland, and the Booth 
Fisheries Co. 

Income account, year ended January 2, 1915. — Gross sales, 18,145,845. Net 
profit from operations, $1.210,724 ; administration expenses, $289,235. Net in- 
come, $921,489. 

Here, then, follows the whole statement of their financial situation. 

Mr. Goodwin. Do you know w-hat was the result of that trial, 
if the indictment was followed to a trial? 

Mr. Wickersham. This is the same indictment. They put that in 
their statement in Poor's Manual, which I am reading from. 

Mr. Hardy. It seems that they sold $18,000,000 of fish products, 
What proportion of the fish products of Alaska was that ? 

Mr. Wickersham. That includes the halibut of Alaska. They 
control the halibut in Alaska. They are exterminating it. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is halibut being exterminated? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. Every time the Bureau of Fisheries 
steamer Albatross finds a new bank these people go out on it and 
skin it. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is any other fish being exterminated? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. What kinds? 

Mr. Wickersham. The salmon. Of course, the output of canned 
salmon is increasing all the time, because they are going into new 
streams and new fields, but there is a limit to it. Dr. Evermann, 
of the Bureau of Fisheries, said three or four years ago that, in 
his judgment, the limit was within reach then, but they have gone 
away beyond that. Either the doctor was wrong or they are going 
into new fields. 

Mr. Goodwin. They clean up as they go, very largely ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. You do not mean that the salmon streams in Alaska 
are depleted? 

Mr. Wickersham. When the white man first saw Karluk it was 
the greatest salmon stream in the w T orld, according to Dr. Evermann 
and everybody else who knows anything about it. It is now de- 
pleted and abandoned. They have moved their canneries. I was up 
there and saw them make a haul of 80,000 salmon, 400,000 pounds. 
The net was fastened to one end of the shore and thew drew it in 
with a large steam winch. 

Mr. Goodwin. Four hundred thousand pounds? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; 80,000 salmon. I have the picture 
here ; it is interesting. 

Mr. Greene. Why should they want to deplete the fish ? 

Mr. Wickersham. That is a very fair question, and I have a fair 
answer. They do not want to do it, but there is absolutely no control. 
A foreman representing one of these salmon canneries up there came 
down last year with me, and he told me, " My people sent me up to 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 261 

Alaska to put up 40,000 cases, with the understanding that if I did 
not do it they would find a new man for my job. I put up the 40,000 
eases." 

Mr. Goodwin. Can anything be done by the Government to stop 
that depletion? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. What is being done? 

Mr. Wickersham. Nothing. 

Dr. Smith. Why do you say that before this committee when the 
Government is operating two salmon hatcheries in Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. Is that what you base it on ? 

Dr. Smith. You are well aware of it? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. In my judgment, you might 

Mr. Ctjrry (interposing). Did they move their canneries from 
Karluk on account of the depletion or on account of the rough harbor 
and the fact that they lost several boats ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know. The stream is depleted and 
is substantially without value. I do not know why they moved away. 

Mr. Curry. Are you sure that the salmon is not running? 

Mr. Wickersham. I suppose there were some last year. There 
[exhibiting] is a picture of the 80,000 salmon haul at Karluk. On 
page 2845 of Poor's Manual is this addendum statement : 

Booth Fisheries Co. (see also p. 172), stock increase, etc.: On August 4, 1915, 
company applied to the New York Stock Exchange to list an additional $706,000 
first preferred stock, which has been issued and is outstanding, making the total 
amount applied for $2,906,000; the $706,000 additional stock was issued for the 
purpose of acquiring the cannery properties and operative properties of Gor- 
man & Co. ; these properties have been transferred to the Anacortes Fisheries 
Co., which company was incorporated April 15, 1915, in Washington, for 50 
years ; capital, $1,000,000, all owned by the Booth Fisheries Co. 

I have gone into this for the purpose of showing the combination 
of the Alaska fishery companies in the Booth Fisheries Co., and it 
is going on all the time. 

(Thereupon the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.) 

AFTER RECESS. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr, Chairman, this morning I said that Mi. 
J. K. Armsby had made certain statements. I made a mistake. It 
was Mr. Frank A. Alpin, vice president and in charge of the eastern 
end of J. K. Armsby & Co., who made them. I want to make that 
correction now, so the gentlemen present will know I was mistaken 
as to the name. 

(The committee thereupon adjourned until Thursday, June 8, 1916, 
at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



^zl.^-s:k:^ fisheeies 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE ON THE 
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 
First Session 

ON 

H. R. 9528 

A BILL FOR THE PROTECTION, REGULATION, AND CON- 
SERVATION OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA 



PART 5 



JUNE 8, 1916 



<ft 



^^r 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1916 



COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES. 
House of Representatives. 



JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. 



RUFUS HARDY, Texas. 
MICHAEL E. BURKE, Wisconsin. 
EDWARD W. SAUNDERS, Virginia. 
PETER J. DOOLING, New York. 
HENRY BRUCKNER, New York. 
LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. 
JAMES F. BYRNES, South Carolina. 
JESSE D. PRICE, Maryland. 
CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. 



OSCAR L. GRAY, Alabama. 
DAVID H. KINCHELOE, Kentucky. 
WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. 
ASHER C. HINDS, Maine. 
CHARLES F. CURRY, California. 
GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania. 
WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, Illinois. 
GEORGE A. LOUD, Michigan. 
LINDLEY H. RADLEY, Washington. 
FREDERICK W. ROWE, New York. 



J. C. Bay, Clerk. 



IT 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



House of Representatives, 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

Thursday, June <?, 1916. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joshua TV. Alexander 
(chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM— Kesumed. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, the committee rather broke into 
the arrangement of my presentation of this matter yesterday, by 
insisting- that I present to the committee at once that element in 
this bill, H. R. 9528, which I think justifies me in saying that it 
will result in a monopoly of the fisheries in Alaska to the Fish Trust, 
and I am inclined to do that; but when I do it I want still to go 
back and connect^ up other matters with the Fish Trust and show, 
if I can, how they, and they alone, are going to benefit by this bill. 

I wish the committee would look at sections 6 and 7 of the bill, 
beginning on page 6 and running through to page 9, because it is on 
account of these sections that I feel justified in saying to the com- 
mittee that the only people who will gain anything by the passage 
of this bill are those connected with the Fish Trust. I will ask the 
committee to look at section 6 while I read it, because I want you to 
get it clear in your mind. I want you to notice, for instance, there is 
no limitation on the number of these trap sites which one person or 
corporation may locate, and the title proposed to be given here is of 
such a nature as to become substantially a title in perpetuity, subject 
only to the failure of the locator who gets the title to do certain small 
things which they will do much cheaper and much better than if 
they had the ordinary tax to pay from year to year, upon failure of 
which, also, they would lose their property. We hold all of our 
property subject to the payment of certain taxes, and if we do not 
pay our taxes upon the property, under the law the property is sold 
and somebody else may obtain title to it. I call your attention to that 
particular phase of losing any of our property for nonpayment of 
our public dues because it is analagous to the condition which is 
presented by these sections. 

Section 6 provides : 

Sec. 6. Fixed net locations. — That any person occupying, or desiring to occupy, 
any location where it may be lawful to construct a pound net in the waters of 
Alaska— 

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me stop right there and say that a pound 
net is what we know in Alaska as a fish trap. It is a long row of 

263 



264 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

piles running out from the shore or through or across the fish water- 
way with a big fish trap at the outer end. The fish coming along a 
roadway like Pennsylvania Avenue — and they travel regular trails in 
the water just as we do on our roads — coming along that roadway the 
fish strike the net on this long row of piles and are diverted outward 
and into the trap where they are caught. That is what is meant by a 
pound net. 

Sec. 6. Fixed net locations. — That any person occupying, or desiring to occupy, 
any location where it may be lawful to construct a pound net in the waters of 
Alaska, shall cause such location to be accurately surveyed by a competent en- 
gineer, unless a survey thereof has already been made, in which event such 
existing survey may be used, and shall cause three maps to be made of such 
location from the actual survey thereof, which shall contain a plat and descrip- 
tion of said fishing location sufficient for its ascertainment and identification on 
the premises. Said maps shall also contain a certificate by the claimant, or by 
his agent or attorney, stating that he claims the fishing location shown thereon, 
specifying the date and number of the license under which the same is held, or 
the fact that application has been made therefor. Such maps, with the certifi- 
cates thereon, shall be filed in the office of the commissioner of records in the 
district wherein the location is situated, which commissioner shall indorse 
thereon the hour and date of filing, and shall forward one of these maps to the 
Secretary of Commerce and another to the Pacific coast office of the Bureau of 
Fisheries. From and after the date of filing in the office of the commissioner 
of records, such map shall constitute full and complete notice that the locator 
has complied with all the provisions of this act and that such location is owned, 
held, occupied, and claimed by the person designated thereon as the claimant. 
From and after the filing of such map the claimant of the fishing location shown 
thereon, his heirs, administrators, executors, successors, and assigns shall have 
the exclusive right to hold, occupy, and fish in such location, to renew the license 
therefor, and to mortgage, sell, and transfer the same during the time that he 
or they in other respects shall comply with the law pertaining thereto : Pro- 
vided, That it shall not be necessary to file any map or plat of any fishing loca- 
tion before January first of the calendar year next after this act takes effect. 

It shall not be necessary to file any map or plat of any fishing location in any 
case where any map or plat has heretofore been filed with the Secretary of 
Commerce and a commissioner of records in the district in which the location 
is situated. All pound net or other fishing locations lawfully occupied during 
the calendar year next preceding the passage of this act shall continue valid : 
Provided, That if any owner or locator shall fail to construct and operate his 
appliance in a bona fide manner for the three consecutive years covered by his 
license, the location shall be deemed abandoned. 

Each commissioner of records and the Secretary of Commerce shall keep an 
index of all such maps, showing the hour and date of filing, the names of 
claimants and serial number of the maps or plats, in the order filed, all of 
which shall be indorsed on them when filed. 

Locations for set nets may be made by erecting a permanent monument near, 
or securely anchoring a buoy on the location claimed, upon which shall be 
posted the number of the license under which such net is operated. 

Locations for stake nets may be made by erecting a permanent monument 
near or driving a pile on the location claimed, upon which shall" be posted the 
number of the license under which each stake net is operated. 

This act shall not affect the use or operation of any fixed fishing appliance in 
a location regarded as lawfully occupied during the calendar year next preced- 
ing the passage of this act, and any and all fishing appliances my be maintained 
upon such location as though this act had not been passed, or they may be 
changed to conform to the provisions hereof as to passageways, at the option 
of the claimant, owner, or holder thereof. 

Next is — 

Sec. 7. Nets, how constructed. — That no lead of any pound net in the 
Territory of Alaska shall exceed three thousand feet in length, and there shall 
be an end passageway of at least six hundred feet and a lateral passageway 
of at least twenty-four hundred feet between all pound nets. The lead of any 
pound net may be extended to high-water mark on the tidelands owned by the 
United States or on other tidelands with the consent of the owners thereof. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 265 

No supplementary wing or jigger shall be of greater length than throe hun- 
dred feet measured over all, nor shall the outer end thereof approach within one 

hundred feel of (he lead of any pound net. 

The rest of that section may go in if the committee desires, but it 
does not relate particularly to fish traps, or rather, while it does in 
some respects, it does not have anything to do with the argument 
I want to make. 

Xow. I call the committee's attention to these facts: That there is 
no limitation, first, upon the number of the fish-trap sites that may 
be taken under that section. A man may locate one, or he may, as 
some of these gentlemen testified they had, locate three, or they 
may. as the Booth Fisheries Co. have already, locate 40, or they may, 
as I assume the Alaska Packers" Association in proportion to the 
amount of its output over the Booth Fisheries Co., locate 120. 

The Chairman. You say they have done that? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I say in proportion to the output of the 
Booth Fisheries Co. The Booth Fisheries Co. have located 40. and 
the Alaska Packers' Association's pack is three times as much as 
that of the Booth Fisheries Co., and I say by comparison they may 
locate 120, if they have not done so. The point I am making is that 
there is no limitation. Any man may by setting stakes, making his 
survey, filing the plat in the office of the local recorder, and filing a 
copy of it with the Department of Commerce, secure as many of these 
trap sites as he wishes to secure. 

Xow, as to the size of the trap site. The ideal trap site made by 
this bill is 1,800 feet in width and 3,600 feet in length. He may 
locate it larger than that. I do not know of anything in this bill to 
limit him even to 4,800 feet one way by 3,600 feet the other way, but 
those are the figures mentioned in the bill, and I am assuming those 
figures as the size of the ideal trap site. Every man now may locate 
as many of those trap sites as he pleases, and each one of them 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing). Under this bill? 

Mr. Wickersham. Under this bill, and each one of them contains 
something like 300 acres of land. 

Mr. Byrnes. Is there any restriction or limitation now placed 
upon them? 

Mr. Wickersham. None whatever. 

Mr. Curry. Why should there be ? 

Mr. Byrnes. Yes; tell us why there should be. 

Mr. Wickersham. Under the law as it now stands the locator of a 
trap site secures only a possessory right that any citizen has in the 
fisheries on tide or public lands. 

Mr. Hardy. There is no exclusion under the law T now? 

Mr. Wickersham. Absolutely no exclusion under the law now. 
A man goes out and locates his trap site now without any boundaries, 
without any exclusive privileges, and it is open to the objection I am 
making to this bill, that he may still locate as many as he pleases. 

Mr. Gray. What is the objection to locating as many as he pleases? 

Mr. Wickersham. The objection is that the Fish Trust now has 
almost all of them located, and if this bill passes they will get title 
to them ; the further objection is that they get an exclusive right and 
an exclusive privilege to fish there, and the rest of the world is 
barred. It makes a complete monopoly of these fisheries under this 
bill, if it passes, and this bill has in it the same defect that has been 



266 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

in all the departmental bills that have been before the committees 
for the last six years have. 

The Chairman. Who is in possession of these sites now ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The Fish Trust. 

The Chairman. How are you going to oust them? 

Mr. Wickersham. I think it is very easily done and I have a 
remedy for that. They are only there as the will of Congress — they 
have no legal title. 

The Chairman. They have a possessory right? 

Mr. Wickersham. They have a possessory right as long as they 
are there, but their traps come out every year. 

The Chairman. This bill provides that if these licenses are not 
renewed every third year they forfeit their right. 

Mr. Wickersham. They will never forfeit them. 

The Chairman. Will they forfeit them under existing law ? 

Mr. Wickersham. They have no right under existing law. They 
are mere squatters on the public land. This committee has a right 
now to take charge of these lands and do something for the preser- 
vation of the fisheries and for the prevention of the monopoly which 
is given to them under these two sections of the bill. 

The Chairman. I am talking about existing law. They are now 
in possession. How are you going to oust them ? 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no difficulty about that. They are 
mere trespassers. How would you oust a man if he went on the 
public lands as a squatter? 

The Chairman. Who would have the right to oust them — some 
other fisherman? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; you. 

The Chairman. Who do you mean by " you " ? 

Mr. Wickersham. This committee — Congress. They have no 
legal right now. 

The Chairman. Could some other citizen go into court and eject 
them ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Not unless he had a better right than the}^ have 
by a prior peaceable possession, and even then he could not interfere 
with the Government's right' of exclusive possession if it chose to 
exert it. 

The Chairman. He would not have any better right than they 
have, because they have a possessory right. 

Mr. Wickersham. But that is all they have. 

The Chairman. They have now all that they would get under this 
bill so far as the right of possession is concerned. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; if this bill passes they have a legal right— 
a legal congressional title. 

The Chairman. But they are in possession now, and they continue 
in possession indefinitely. 

Mr. Goodwin. Have they any legal right under existing law ? 

Mr. Wickersham. None whatever, except as trespassers on Gov- 
ernment property. 

Mr. Curry. This law compels them to use that site within three 
years or lose title, and under existing law they do not have to use it. 

Mr. Hardy. As I understand it, the difference is that under this 
law you make permanent a right they hold now as mere trespassers on 
the public domain which has no standing in law. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 267 

Mr. Wickersham. Absolutely — that is correct. 

The Chairman. Who is going to oust them under existing law? 

Mr. Hardy. He says, nobody. 

The Chairman. They are not trespassers. 

Mr. Hardy. It is just the same as if a man were a squatter on 
public land. Who can oust him? Another man can not do it, but 
the Government can. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; the Government can. 

The Chairman. I assume we can. 

Mr. Hardy. That is what Mr. Wickersham saj^s. He says they 
occupy the same position. 

The Chairman. He has not suggested any remedy. 

Mr. Wickersham. But I will do so. I can not suggest everything 
in one breath. 

Mr. Goodwin. Has not Congress the right to make such limita- 
tions, restrictions, and regulations by law as would oust them? 

Mr. Wickersham. Undoubtedly it has. 

Mr. Hardy. If I understand it, they occupy the same position as 
squatters on the public land. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and nothing else. That is all the right 
they have. 

Mr. Bower. Congress has recognized the fish trap in Alaskan 
waters, for the reason that specific limitations in respect to it are 
contained in the act of June 26, 1906 

The Chairman (interposing). Oh, yes; and the Government is 
collecting and receiving taxes from them year after year. They are 
not trespassers. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Government would not recognize my right 
in a piece of public land because of my improvements upon it. Un- 
til I obtain a legal entry, my mere presence on and use of the land 
dees not give me a title. 

The Chairman. You have undertaken to tax these people, and I 
do not see how you can say they are trespassers. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; the Territory has taxed the fish traps $100 
apiece, and not the trap site or land, and they have paid that tax. 
That is the only part of the tax they have paid, and they only pay it 
because they think if they pay that tax it will put them in a better 
position when they make their claim to the property. The whole 
question is whether these people shall have the title to this property 
or not, and that is why these philanthropic gentlemen from the West 
who are engaged in the fish business are sitting around here all win- 
ter working for this bill. They want the title to this property, and 
I warn this committee that that is what they are after. I warn you, 
gentlemen, that if you pass this bill with that provision in it you 
will give those people the title to fisheries in Alaska that are worth 
$-400,000,000. • 

Mr. Curry. I would like to know how this bill gives them title. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then just let me read you something. If you 
gentlemen will pay attention to this same clause that I read to 3-011 
before, I will read it again with a change. It is the same section, 
but I will change it a little and will jmt in the words " coal mines " 
instead of fisheries. I know that there is not a man on this com- 
mittee and not a man in Congress who would be in favor of this if it 



268 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

were transposed by inserting the words " coal mines " in there instead 
of fisheries. 

Mr. Curry. What are you reading from? 

Mr. Wickersham. I am reading section 6 of this bill. Now, if 
you were to substitute copper-mine locations, coal-mine locations, 
or any other locations on the public lands as valuable as these 
fisheries 

The Chairman (interposing). Why not suggest your remedy? I 
think we are familiar with the text of the bill. 

Mr. Goodwin. I would like to have Judge Wickersham call at- 
tention to this particular part or section of the bill. 

The Chairman. He read it a moment ago. 

Mr. Wickersham. If you will follow it now, you will discover 
the strength of their proposed title. 

Mr. Green. I think we ought to give Judge Wickersham a chance 
to make his statement. 

Mr. Wickersham. I will read section 6, on page 6, substituting 
the words " coal mines " for " fisheries :" 

That any person occupying or desiring to occupy any location where it may 
be lawful to open a coal mine in the Territory of Alaska shall cause such 
location to be accurately surveyed by a competent engineer, unless a survey 
thereof has already been made, in which event such existing survey may be 
used, and shall cause three maps to be made of such location from the actual 
survey thereof, which shall contain a plat and description of said coal-mine 
location sufficient for its ascertainment and identification on the premises. 
Said maps shall also contain a certificate by the claimant, or by his agent or 
attorney, stating that he claims the coal-mine location shown thereon, specify- 
ing the date and the number of the license under which the same is held, or 
the fact that application has been made therefor. Such maps, with the cer- 
tificates thereon, shall be filed in the office of the commissioner of records in 
the district wherein the location is situated, which commissioner shall indorse 
thereon the hour and date of filing, and shall forward one of these maps to the 
Secretai-y of the Interior. 

From and after the date of filing in the office of the commissioner of records, 
such map shall constitute full and complete notice that the locator has com- 
plied with all the provisions of this act and that such location is owned, held, 
occupied, and claimed by the person designated thereon as the claimant. From 
and after the filing of such map the claimant of the coal-mine location shown 
thereon, his heirs, administrators, executors, successors, and assigns, shall have 
the exclusive right to hold, occupy, and mine in such location, to renew the 
license therefor, and to mortgage, sell, and transfer the same during the time 
that he or they in other respects shall comply with the law pertaining thereto : 
Provided, That it shall not be necessary to file any map or plat of any mining 
location before January first of the calendar year next after this act takes 
effect. 

It shall not be necessary to file any map or plat of any coal-mining location 
in any case where any map or plat has heretofore been filed with the Secretary 
of the Interior and the commissioner of records in the district in which the 
location is situated. All coal-mining locations lawfully occupied during the 
calendar year next preceding the passage of this act shall continue valid : 
Provided, That if any owner or locator shall fail to construct and operate his 
coal-mine in a bona fide manner for the three consecutive years covered by his 
license, the location shall be deemed abandoned. 

The rest of it is just as I read it to you awhile ago, except that the 
words " coal mines " should be read instead of fisheries. Now, if that 
were done, or if that sort of bill were passed with reference to the 
coal mines, copper mines, or any of the other resources of Alaska, 
you know what would happencl. That is just what is happening 
with respect to the fisheries to-day. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



269 



Mr. Goodwin. Now, I cull attention to the language in lines 19 
and 20 — tw and that such location is owned, held, occupied, and claimed 
by the person designated thereon as the claimant." 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Goodwin. There is a property clause later on, but does that 
put an indefeasible title in the hands of the claimants or the men 
who make these locations? 

Mr. Wickersham. I can not say how far the courts will hold this 
language will vest title, but there is the right to mortgage it. 

Mr. Goodwin. The language seems to me to be complete. 

Mr. Wickersham. He is there with the right to mortgage it, and 
when he does mortgage it, what will you do about it? Suppose the 
Booth Fisheries Co. got the 40 claims they have now located and 
marked out, and suppose they should issue 20-year bonds secured by 
these claims and the rest of their property, as they will do — they will 
do it for the purpose of making their title better 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing). What would be your remedy? In 
other words, what substitute would you suggest for this? 

Mr. Hardy. Judge Wickersham says that he is coming to that. 
He has arranged his line of presentation. 

Mr. Wickersham. One of the remedies, Mr. Chairman, is the one 
which Franklin K. Lane has suggested time after time. It is a good 
old Democratic remedy, and it is one that has been approved time 
after time. It will save the fisheries of Alaska from the Fish Trust, 
if it is adopted. 

Now, I want to call attention to a number of these trap sites. I 
have here a telegram received yesterday from the chief counsel of 
Gov. Strong, the attorney general of the Territory of Alaska. I tele- 
graphed to know how many of these trap sites had been paid on this 
year in Alaska, and the attorney general sends me this telegram: 

Juneau, Alaska, June 5, 1916. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate from Alaska, Washington: 
License paid on 246 traps this year ; payment on about 100 more dependent 
on affirmance test cases. 

J. H. Cobb, Chief Counsel. 

Now, on that same date, January 5, Mr. Cobb wrote me a letter, 
which I have not read to the committee. Attached to that letter is 
a list of the fishing concerns that have signed agreements to abide 
by the judgments of the court of last resort in the test cases brought 
to determine the validity of the Territorial revenue laws, together 
with the amount of taxes due for each of the years 1913, 1911, and 
1915, exclusive of interest. Then, attached to that is a list of canning 
concerns that have failed to pay or sign agreements to be bound by 
the test cases. Attached to that is a list of judgments and amounts 
thereof in test suits brought by the Territory. Then follows a list 
of parties owing for fish-trap licenses and amount of the same, who 
have signed the agreements to abide the decision of the court of last 
resort on the test cases. That list is as follows: 



Alaska Portland Packers' Asso- 
ciation $300 

Alaska Sanitary Packing Co___ 100 

Astoria & Paget Sound Can- 
ning Co 500 

Anacortes Fisheries Co 700 



Barnes, v. <\. & Co $400 

Columbia River Packers' Asso- 
ciation 1, 300 

Deep Sea Salmon Co 700 

George Inlet Packing Co 200 

Fidalgo Island Packing Co 700 



270 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



Point Warde Packing Co__ 

Petersburg Packing Co 

Pure Food Fish Co 

Sanbotn Cutting Co 

Starr Collinson Packing Co_ 



$300 
300 
100 
300 
300 

Sunny Point Packing Co 100 

Taku Canning & Cold Storage 

Co . 900 

Tee Harbor Packing Co 600 



Harris, P. E., & Co $1,100 

Karheen Packing Co 200 

Libby, McNeil & Libby 800 

Geo. T. Myers & Co 800 

Nakat Inlet Canning Co $100 

Northwestern Fisheries Co 1, 900 

Northwestern Fisheries Co. 

(Chignik Cannery) 1,400 

Pacific American Fisheries Co 2, S00 

Pillar Bay Packing Co 300 

Now, I read that for the purpose of showing you how many they 
have on record. For instance, the Booth Fisheries Co. is repre- 
sented in the Anacortes Fisheries Co. and is represented by the 
Northwestern Fisheries Co. twice. In one place they have 7 traps, 
in another 19, and in another they have 14. In other words, they 
have 40 trap sites that I know of, and how many more they have I do 
not know. 

Mr. Hardy. That is the company about which you read from 
Poor's Manual of Industrials for 1915? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; and that is the one against which the 
indictment was found for being the halibut trust in Alaska. They 
own 40 trap sites there now, on the face of the record, but how many 
more I do not know. 

Mr. Hardy. Do each one of them cover 300 acres ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know, but they will if this bill passes. 

Mr. Curry. Is the Booth Co. engaged in salmon fishing? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; very largely. 

Mr. Curry. In the salmon fisheries? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is all salmon. 

Mr. Curry. How many companies are engaged in those fisheries 
up there? 

Mr. Wickersham. There are three big companies and a lot of 
small ones. The Alaska Packers' Association is, of course, a large 
concern, and the Booth Fisheries Co. is a large concern. The Booth 
Fisheries Co. is increasing and growing day by day, and it will soon 
be very much larger than the Alaska Packers' Association. I am 
told they are attempting, and have been attempting, to secure the 
control of the Alaska Packers' Association in their concern or to 
form a combination. 

Mr. Curry. You do not know how many of them are engaged in 
the fisheries? 

Mr. Wickersham. There are probably 100. There is quite a lot 
of them. 

Mr. Bower. A number of them, I believe, are owned exclusively 
in Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many? 

Mr. Bower. I should say probably five or six. 

Mr. Wickersham. Five or six of the very small concerns, and the 
rest of them are owned by the Fish Trust? 

Mr. Bower. No; many of them are owned by independent com- 
panies. 

Mr. Wickersham. You do not know who owns them ? 

Mr. Bower. We have a reasonably good idea. 

Mr. Wickersham. If you have any information along that line 
you are not doing your duty when you do not give it to this com- 
mittee. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 271 

Mr. Bower. We are ready to do it, as far as we can, at any time 
the committee wants us to. 

Mr. Goodwin. What permanent right will these companies have 
if their contention is sustained by the courts? What limitations or 
restrictions will be imposed upon those companies as to their future 
holdings? 

Mr. Wickersham. The litigation does not have anything to do 
with their title. They recognize they have no title now any more 
than a man who simply squats on a piece of public land out in the 
West. 

The Chairman. The Legislature of Alaska passed an act providing 
they should pay a license fee of $100 a year on each fish trap, and 
now the Territory of Alaska, through the courts, is trying to collect 
that tax. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; and other taxes. 

The Chairman. I think the judge is wrong in saying they are the 
same as trespassers on the public domain when they recognize their 
existence and are requiring them to pay a tax and when the General 
Government is trying to make them pay a tax to the Government, 
they can not be regarded in the light of trespassers. I think their 
right is one held at the will of the Government. 

Mr. Wickersham. All right; we will put it in that way. 

Mr. Greene. Does the provision of the Legislature of Alaska pro- 
vide for creating a title? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; none whatever. 

Mr. Greene. Then it is quite different. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Legislature of Alaska can not do that. 

Mr. Greene. This bill proposes to create a title. 

Mr. Wickersham. Nobody can do that but you gentlemen at this 
table — but Congress. 

Mr. Curry. I have read this bill carefully, time after time, and I 
do not see where this bill vests any title. 

Mr. Greene. Authority to mortgage is quite a serious title. 

Mr. Curry. The limitation cf three years' possession is simply a 
possessory title. 

Mr. Wickersham. They may stay there 30 years if they comply 
with the law by paying the small license fee fixed in this bill. 

The Chairman. A man does not have to have a fee simple title in 
order to mortgage. 

Mr. Wickersham. The title fixed by this bill is similar to the title 
we have in mines in Alaska. 

The Chairman. Are they not mortgaged ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; they mortgage their right; certainly they 
do, and it is a substantial title, as this will be. 

Mr. Curry. And they have to use their mines or else they lose their 
title? 

Mr. Wickersham. Certainly; it is a similar situation. 

Mr. Curry. If I discover a mine and locate it and work it, I ought 
to have it. 

Mr. Wickersham. Certainly ; but I do not think you ought to have 
title in the case of the fisheries of Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. But we are talking about mines. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; in the case of mines it is different. 



272 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Curry. If I locate a mine, put up the works on it, and work 
it, I ought to have it as long as I work it? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; and the Government provides for giving 
you the title to it by patent. 

Mr. Currt. I have to work it for a certain number of years be- 
fore I get the title. If I abandon the mine all of my work goes for 
nothing, and you can come along and take it up yourself and work it. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am calling your attention to the effect, if 
this bill passes as it now is. The people can take up these lands and 
get a legal title to them and thereby secure a monopoly of the 
Alaska fisheries. 

Mr. Currt. That is what I want to find out. 

Mr. Wickersham. You only have to read the bill to find that out. 

Mr. Currt. I have read the bill and that has not been made clear 
to me. You are a lawyer, and you are the Delegate from Alaska, 
and I would like to know how the bill does give them a legal title to 
these sites? 

Mr. Wickersham. It gives them the. legal title because it gives 
them an exclusive title; it gives them an exclusive right to the 
possession of the property; it gives them the right to mortgage it; 
it gives them the right to base a bond issue on it ; it gives them the 
right to draw all of these titles into one concern and get a complete 
title in one concern in Alaska, to wit, a monopoly. 

Mr. Currt. If they do not use it in three years, then what ? 

Mr. Wickersham. They will use it ; do not worry about that. 

Mr. Hardt. As I understand it, the only difference between this 
and what we call a fee-simple title to land is that when you have 
a fee-simple title it is indefeasible by any failure or condition; but 
this title is made so that it may be perpetuated by simply keeping 
up certain minor, small, unimportant acts. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir ; as in mines everywhere in the great 
West, before patent issues. 

Mr. Hardt. But it may be defeated or lapse by failure to do those 
little things? 

Mr. Wickersham. They may abandon it, if they want to; but 
they Avill not. They are like valuable paying mines — and may be 
fully monopolized. 

Mr. Hardt. As long as they keep their maps filed and do some 
other little things under this law, the title is exclusive. 

Mr. Wickersham. The title is theirs just as much as if they had a 
patent. 

The Chairman. Here is what the bill says : 

Provided, That if any owner or locator shall fail to construct and operate his 
appliance in a bona fkie manner for the three consecutive years covered by his 
license, the location shall be deemed abandoned. 

Just like a man can not locate a mine and hold it indefinitely ; he 
must operate it. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

The Chairman. And he must operate this trap. He can not hold it 
indefinitely. He has got to operate it in good faith every year during 
the three years or else he forfeits his right ; that is very far from a 
fee-simple title. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is not a fee-simple title. I do not think the 
chairman ought to say I have said it was a fee-simple title. I say it is 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 273 

a title substantially by contract with the Government of the United 
States, which permits these people to go there and take the fishing 
grounds if they want to. 

The Chairman. Would you have them transfer it to somebody 
else every year and open them to competitive bids for relocation? 
Would that be better? I am not committed myself to this plan at all. 
I just want to find out some better plan, if possible. 

Mr. Wickersham. There are several better plans than this. What 
would von do with coal mines in Alaska? What did you do with 
them? 

Mr. Curry. You did what I would not do with them. 

Mr. Wickersham. They did what I would not do with them, but it 
is much better to do that than to do this. 

The leasing of our coal mines does protect the people to some extent, 
at least, because no man can get more than 5,280 acres of coal lands, 
with which he can not create a monopoly, while he can get 500,000 
acres of our fisheries, and by assignment to the Fish Trust he can 
create a single monopoly in this great food supply. 

Mr. Curry. But nothing would be done with them ? 

Mr. AYickersham. But something would be done with these 
fisheries if this bill should be passed. 

Mr. Curry. If they do, the people will have the fish to eat. 

Mr. Wickersham. They are paying 68 per cent more for them now 
than they were paving a short time ago, without any apparent cause 
for it, except the trust is getting hold of the fisheries. 

Mr. Curry. There are other causes than that. 

Mr. Wickersham. The gentleman may find other causes, but there 
is but one, just the same. Now, if you will allow me 

The Chairman (interposing). Speaking about trusts, how many 
fishery companies are operating in Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. I have not given any figure. I said there were 
probably 100. 

The Chairman. Are they all in a trust? 

Mr. Wickersham. No, sir. 

The Chairman. How many of them are in the trust ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The greater proportion of them; and the trust 
is growing every day. 

The Chairman. What percentage of them are in the trust? 

Mr. Wickersham. You tell me what percentage of the oil is con- 
trolled by the Standard Oil Trust — you can not do it. 

The Chairman. You say that the fisheries of Alaska are controlled 
by a trust, but I am not going to take as evidence your ipse dixit. I 
would like to have some facts to satisfy me and the members of this 
committee that your statement is correct. I simply want some evi- 
dence of the existence of the trust. 

Mr. Wickersham. You want some proof of it? 

The Chairman. Yes. Of course, what you read from Poor's 
Manual is in the record. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; and there is more of it here. I want 
to call your attention to the Northwestern Fisheries Co. for a mo- 
ment. The Northwestern Fisheries Co. was the Morgan-Guggen- 
heim Fisheries Co. in Alaska, and I refer you to the statement con- 
cerning that company on page 1764 of Poor's Manual of Industries 



'274 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

for 1910. The statement is very brief, and I will read only just a 
very brief portion of it. You will find it at the page mentioned, as 
follows : 

Northwestern Commercial Co., incorporated November 29, 1899, under the 
laws of Washington, to conduct railway and steamship transportation. Owns 
all the capital stock of the Northwestern Fisheries Co. and the North Coast 
Lighterage Co. and a majority of. the stock of the Northeastern Siberian Co. 
and of the Alaska Steamship Co. 

I do not need to go any further with that, except to call attention 
to the trustees of the Northwestern Commercial Co., which in 1910 
owned all of the capital stock of the Northwestern Fisheries Co. 
W. R. Rust, of Tacoma, Wash., was one of the trustees, and he was 
also the president and general manager of the Tacoma Smelter Co. 
S. W. Eccles, who is the general manager of the Alaska Syndicate, 
is one of the trustees. The others are W. P. Hamilton, E. S. Pegram, 
and Stephen Birch, Stephen Birch being the present president and 
general manager of their interests in Alaska. I now call your atten- 
tion to the list of trustees and officers of the Northwestern Commer- 
cial Co., on page 1765 of Poor's Manual 

The Chairman (interposing). How many traps has the North- 
western Fisheries Co. in Alaska? 

Mr. Wickeksham. I will show you in a moment. The Northwest- 
ern Fisheries Co. had 33 traps. They owned 33 traps, but they do 
not own them now, because they have sold them to the Booth Fish- 
eries Co. 

The Chairman. Where is the evidence of that ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I will give you the evidence of that. 

Mr. Hardy. I think he read that statement yesterday. 

Mr. Wickersham. I would prefer to refer to it again, because I 
want the committee to have it clear in their minds. 

I read to you now from page 172 of Poor's Manual of Industrials 
for 1915, under the head of Booth Fisheries Co. I will only read that 
portion which relates to the Northwestern Fisheries Co. : 

On April 1, 1911, purchased the entire capital stock and assets of the North- 
western Fisheries Co., a Washington corporation owning a fleet of boats and 
12 fishing plants on the Alaskan coast, etc. 

Now, they have the NortliAvestern Fisheries Co. and the other com- 
panies I called your attention to yesterday — the International, Gor- 
man & Co., and the other companies. 

Mr. Byrnes. Do you know how many traps the Booth people con- 
trol in all? 

Mr. Wickersham. I only have information about 40. 

Mr. Byrnes. They got 33 from the Northwestern alone. 

Mr. Wickersham. They got 33 from the Northwestern, and then 
they own 7 more, making 40. How many more they have I do not 
know, because under this bill you do not have to file your map. I 
call your attention to that, too. Under section 6, if you were in pos- 
session last year, if this bill passes, your title this year becomes good. 

Mr. Curry. But last year's map is filed, is it not ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know whether it is or not. They do 
not have to file a map. 

Mr. Curry. This bill requires it. 

Mr. Byrnes. I think this bill requires that it shall be filed. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 275 

Mr. Wickersham. The bill states: 

Provided, Thai it shall nol be necessary to file any map or plat of any fishing 
location before January i of the calendar year next after (his acl takes effect. 

Mr. Curry. But the sites which are occupied now are only valid if 
the maps are filed. 

Mr. Wickersham. Not at all. There is no law requiring it now 

Mr. Curry. But if this bill passes it will be required. 

Mr. Wickersham. If this bill passes it would be required, but it 
is not required now. 

Mr. Hardy. If the bill passes now it will require that they be filed 
oy next January. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Curry. The bill also provides that sites obtained last year will 
not be resurveyed and the maps refiled. If they have been surveyed 
they do not have to be resurveyed. 

Mr. Hardy. If they have been surveyed and the maps filed they do 
not have to be resurveyed, .but if the maps have not been filed, then 
they must be filed. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is a curative act of the broadest kind. It 
makes good all claims of trap sites these people have in Alaska and 
gives them a congressional grant so far as it goes. It is a title you 
will have great difficulty in getting rid of hereafter if you once 
pass it. 

Mr. Goodwin. On yesterday you spoke about the rapid fish deple- 
tion. What manner of catching fish is bringing that about— the 
traps or the seines? 

The Chairman. Suppose we let the judge go on now in a consecu- 
tive way. 

Mr. Goodwin. I just want to get at what is bringing about this 
fish depletion— the traps or the seines or what. 

Mr. Wickersham. All of them. 

Mr. Goodavin. Should the traps be abandoned or restricted ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; unless there is a general restriction the fish 
are all going to be lost just as they are in the Sacramento River. 

Mr. Curry. There are lots of fish in the Sacramento River, and it 
was not fishing that depleted them there. 

Mr. Wickersham. Something destroyed them, because they are 
gone now just as they are in the Stikine and Skeena River, and just 
as they are going in the halibut banks. 

Mr. Curry. There are lots of fish in the Sacramento River. 

Mr. Wickersham. They are not canned. 

Mr. Curry. We do not can them, because we can make more money 
by salting them and sending them east salted. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, possibly. I am not prepared to give you 
any information on that, because you know more about it than I do. 

Mr. Curry. I know about that matter, because it is in my district. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. So is the Alaska Packers' Association 
resident in your State, and they have made more millions of dollars 
out of Alaska and have done more to deplete it and destroy the re- 
sources of Alaska than any other one concern in the world. 

Mr. Curry. Well, I doubt that. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not. 

Mr_CuRRY. They have done some pretty good work up there. 



276 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think they have, too, for themselves. 

Mr. Curry. They have developed the fisheries and have given the 
people of the country a good fish supply, and if they had not been 
up there the people would not have had the fish to eat. These salmon, 
if they are not caught, go up the river, spawn, and die, and what 
are caught are just so much saved for human consumption. 

Mr. Wickersham. I called your attention to the indictment in this 
case against the Booth Fisheries Co., and I want to call your atten- 
tion to one or two other matters with respect to that before I go on. 

I want to call your attention now to the Alaska Packers' Associa- 
tion. The Alaska Packers' Association has heretofore, of course, 
been the great Fish Trust in Alaska. In 1867, when Gen. Rousseau 
went to Alaska, he started from New York and went around by 
the Isthmus to San Francisco; a gentleman from Baltimore went 
with him, a Mr. Hutchinson, a merchant, a shrewd, bright man. 
When Mr. Hutchinson got to San Francisco, in 1867, lie went up to 
Sacramento and there he met a Jew merchant, a fine man — both of 
them were fine men and I do not intend to reflect upon them in the 
slightest by what I say — Mr. Louis Sloss. 

Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Sloss organized their plans by getting one 
or two other men in with them. They beat the commissioner to 
Sitka, the then Russian capital, and they bought the vessels, the 
fishing outfits, and mercantile supplies of the Russian American 
Co., and then and there established the group of financiers who now 
conduct the Alaska Packers' Association. In 1869 those people took 
over the first fur-seal lease from the United States, and Sloss and 
Leibes, and that group of men, had the fur-seal fisheries of Alaska 
for 20 years. In 1890, when their lease expired, they had discovered 
a better thing, and they formed the Alaska Packers' Association, to 
put up salmon in Alaska, and became the first great Alaska Salmon 
Trust. They have been engaged in that business ever since and they 
have made enormous fortunes out of it. 

I want to call your attention to the data with respect to that con- 
cern in Poor's Manual of Industrials of 1915, pages 21 and 2841. 
I am going to be very brief; I am not going to take up much of 
your time. On page 21 it says: 

The Alaska Packers' Association. History: The association was incorporated 
in February, 1893, under the laws of California, to can salmon on the Pacific 
coast. The association operated, in 1914, 14 canneries in Alaska and 1 on 
Pnget Sound ; also owns 2 salmon hatcheries and 9 ships, 12 barks, 1 barken- 
tine, 3 schooners, and 62 steamers and launches; a total of 87 vessels. 

And then follows a statement of their operation, a financial state- 
ment, and a statement of their earnings and the enormous fortunes 
they have made out of this great business in Alaska. They say here 
that the total dividends since organization, including a stock dividend 
of $1,680,000 in 1895, amount to $8,960,883. Now, I have examined 
their accounts and they charge up everything, depreciation and the 
building of new ships and everything of that kind, and take it all 
out of profit and loss, and their insurance account is one of the big- 
gest accounts, yet their profits are substantially $1,000,000 per an- 
num. Their gross profit last year was more than $1,000,000. 

The Chairman. What is their capital stock? 

Mr. Wickersham. Their capital stock in 1901 was $4,800,000 and in 
1905 it was increased to $5,750,000, and it has remained at that ever 
since. 



ALASKA FISH KIM KS. 277 

The Chairman. What were their gross receipts per year? 

Mr. Wickeesham. They do not give their gross receipts, Mr. Chair- 
man, but they give their gross profits for 1914 as $1,091,401. 

The Chairman. Do they give their net profits? 

Mr. Wickeesham. They give their net profits for the same time 
after they have written off the dividends paid and all that sort of 
thing as $44-l,C>4<), but the dividends were $345,048. 

Mr. Hardy. Was that increase of stock from putting in outside 
funds or just a declared stock dividend \ 

Mr. Wickeesham. I do not know, but I assume it was a declared 
stock dividend, because below here it says " including a stock divi- 
dend of $1,680,000 in 1905." 

Mr. Habdt. Was that when they increased the capital stock to 
$5,000,000? 

Mr. Wickeesham. Yes; that was in 1905. 

Mr. Curry. I do not think you will find any watered stock in that 
concern. 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not know anything about it. I am just 
telling yon what is shown on the face of their own statement. 

Mr. Curry. They are good, straight people; and if they have made 
money they have made it honestly. 

The Chairman. What are their net earnings? 

Mr. Wickersham. I can not tell you. 

The Chairman. Of course, we can figure that our ourselves. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. I want to call your attention to page 2841 
of the addenda to Poor's Manual, as follows : 

Alaska Packers' Association (see also p. 21) : Gross profits for 1914 amounted 
to $1,255,085 ; surplus for the year, $608,324. 

Therefore they are not suffering any on account of this business, 
but here they are complaining about the payment of 2 cents a case 
on their output when they have increased the price to the people of 
this country 68 per cent, and are making millions of dollars out of it, 
yet they want a pitiful little 2 cents knocked off on each case of 48 
cans which they sell for about $14. That is not really what they are 
here for. They do not care anything about this tax. What they 
want is title to this property, a title by congressional grant and un- 
limited power to create a monopoly. They will look after the profits 
if they can get this bill enacted into law. 

Mr. Hardy. If you will allow me to suggest it, I think that the im- 
portant question for this committee is the question of whether or not 
this bill in sections 6 and 7 would have a tendency to permit a grad- 
ual gathering up of all of the fishery resources of Alaska into mo- 
nopolistic hands and the final accomplishment of a monopoly of these 
fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is nothing in it to prevent the Booth 
Fisheries Co. from taking over every one of those trap sites, is there ? 

Mr. Hardy. What is the remedy for it, or what is the prevention ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another one of 
those concerns up there that needs some attention, and I call atten- 
tion to it because they have their men sitting around here year after 
year, and I have had to fight them year after year to save the fish- 
eries for the people of this country. I refer to Libby, McNeill & 
Libby, of Chicago. They are in the Meat Trust, and they are be- 

46232— pt 5—16 2 



278 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

ginning to get into the fisheries business very vigorously in opposi- 
tion to the Booth Fisheries Co. Libby, McNeill & Libby is a sub- 
sidiary corporation, and belongs to Swift & Co., the greatest Meat 
Trust in the world. Now, these people will get these fisheries if 
you pass this bill, or anything like it. 

The Chairman. What will happen if we do not do anything? 

Mr. Wickersham. They will never get title, although they will 
continue to monopolize and control the fish supply. 

The Chairman. The Booth Fisheries people are sweeping right 
along now. I do not want any monopoly, but they are doing that 
now. 

Mr. Wickersham. And this bill legalizes it. It is illegal up to 
elate. 

The Chairman. They would not invest their money unless they 
think they have something to invest in. 

Mr. Hardy. It occurs to me that if they could get assurance that 
this bill would pass or that nothing was going to be clone, in either 
case they would be likely to go ahead and try to monopolize the 
fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no doubt about that — they gain either 
if you pass this bill or do nothing. 

Mr. Hardy. If we did not pass this bill nor any other bill, and if 
they could be assured that no bill would be passed, I do not think 
i hey would want anything better than that ; but at the present time 
they can not be assured that no bill will be passed, and that is the 
reason I asked you what the remedy there might be. 

Mr. Lazaro. Have you suggested any remedy ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir ; I have s"me remedies to suggest, if the 
committee will permit me. I do not know that my remedy would 
be a complete remedy, and I do not know that it would be a sufficient 
remedy. I do not know what is a sufficient remedy for the encroach- 
ments of these great trusts. If I could suggest a complete remedy for 
curbing the trusts, I could go to Chicago and beat our friend Col. 
Roosevelt for the Republican nomination and be elected President, 
but I can not do it. Though in this case I can suggest a remedy 
which will prevent legalizing a fish trust in Alaska. 

Mr. FIardy. We have remedies, but the difficulty is in enforcing 
them. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; there is no doubt about their influence, as 
1 have found to my sorrow here in Washington. At page 1307 of 
Poor's Manual for 1915 appears the matter with reference to Libby, 
McNeill & Libby, to which I want to call your attention. It is not 
much, because the Swift people are careful, and they do not expose 
any more of their business affairs than is necessary. I read this 
statement, appearing on page 1307 of Poor's Manual : 

Libby, McNeill & Libby, incorporated August 6, 1903. in Maine, and con- 
ducts packing business ; plants located at Chicago, 111. Capital stock author- 
ized and outstanding, $5,000,000. Shares $100. Dividends paid at the rate of 
8 per cent per annum. Directors, L. F. Swift, E. F. Swift, L. A. Carton. \y. F. 
Burrows, H. Veeder, Harold H. Swift, G. F. Swift, jr., C. H. Swift, Edward 
G. McDougall. 

The officers of the company are the same people. 
I now want to call attention to the statement regarding the Swift 
Refrigerating & Transportation Co., on page 2025 of Poor's Manual. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 279 

The Swift Refrigerating & Transportation Co. takes over the fish 
and looks after the refrigerating end of the business. This statement 
appears at page 2025 of Poor's Manual : 

Swift Refrigerating & Transportation Co., incorporated September K5, 1889, 
in Maine. Owns over 5,000 cars which arc used for the transportation of the 
products of Swift & Co. Capital stuck authorized and paid in, December 31, 
1914, $5,000,000. Shares $100. Dividends 7 per cent per annum, payable 

quarterly. 

Among their officers are E. F. Swift, president, and L. A. Carton, 
vice president, the same men being officers in Libby, McNeill & Libby. 

I now call attention to the statement concerning Swift & Co., at 
page 1606 of Poor's Manual, as follows : 

Swift & Co.. packers, incorporated April 1, 1S85, in Illinois, and succeeded 
to the packing business of G. F. Swift & Co. Has packing plants at the Union 
Stock Yards. Chicago, and at South Omaha, Kansas City, East St. Louis, 
South St. Joseph, South St. Paul, and Fort Worth, and has branch houses for 
the distribution of its goods in nearly every large city in the United States. 
Products are distributed in foreign countries also. 

The officers of that company are Louis L. Swift, president, Edward 
F. Swift, and Lawrence A. Carton, and Charles F. Swift, the same 
men who own the concern of Libby, McNeill & Libby". 

The Chairman. Well, they are a big concern and they buy poultry 
and eggs 

Mr. Wickersham (interposing). And fish. 

The Chairman (continuing). In our country. They are a great 
big concern. 

Mr. Wickersham. After I had finished giving my testimony be- 
fore the committee and while engaged in correcting proof of the 
same. I received in my office a copy of the Daily Alaska Dispatch, 
published in Juneau. Alaska. June 1, 1916, in which I find the fol- 
lowing statement : 

OPTION TAKEN ON CANNERIES IN NORTHLAND BY LIBBY, M'NEIL & LIBBY, THE 

WELL-KNOWN PACKERS OF CHICAGO PAID A BIG PRICE FOR RIGHT OF OPTION — THE 

NEW COMPANY HAS UNTIL OCTOBER TO CLOSE THE DEAL FOR FOUR CANNERIES 
ON BRISTOL BAY AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY. 

[By Associated Press.] 

San Francisco, June 1, 1916. 

Libby, McNeil & Libby, the Chicago packers, have purchased an option on four 
salmon canneries on Bristol Bay, seven cannery ships, and other personal prop- 
erty of the Alaska Salmon Co., of San Francisco, a $600,000 corporation. 

The purchase price is not announced. 

The Chicago packing firm paid $200,000 for its option, and has until October 
next to complete the deal. 

A personal representative will visit the property. 

The advent of the big packers into the Alaska held is considered a sign that 
other capital will he anxious to seek investment in that country. 

I add the foregoing clipping to my testimony because I am sure it 
correctly states the fact. I call the committee's attention to this 
statement because it corroborates all the evidence and other facts 
pointing to a complete monopoly of the Alaskan fisheries. The op- 
tion mentioned in this statement gives the Chicago Meat Trust four 
more canneries in Alaska, though how many additional trap sites 
it gives them I have not been able to ascertain. Your attention is 
called to the fact that the Territory of Alaska obtained judgment 



280 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

against the Alaskan Salmon Co. mentioned in this statement on 
December 22, 1915, for $5,933.63 for license taxes for the years 1913. 
1911, and 1915, which has not been paid. 

They own a large number of these fish-trap locations on the fish- 
ing grounds in Alaska. And the Chicago Meat Trust, the Booth 
Fisheries Co., and the Alaska Packers' Association will own all of the 
fish locations in Alaska in a very brief space of time if this bill goes 
through. 

The Chairman. AVhat worries me is that they may do it anyway, 
whether this bill goes through or not. 

Mr. Wickeesham. Then why do they have their lobbyists here all 
the time? 

Mr. Curry. I have not seen any of them. 

Mr. Wickersham. You have not? 

Mr. Curry. Not one has talked to me. 

Mr. Wickersham. Have you talked to Mr. Warren? 

Mr. Warren. I am here representing my own company. 

Mr. Wickersham. You are, and the interests you are representing 
here are the interests of the Fish Trust. You have been around here 
all winter logrolling, and the total result is to their benefit, 

Mr. Curry. I will say that this gentleman has not talked to me 
about the fisheries proposition or any of the rest of them. 

Mr. Wickersham. It was not necessary. 

Mr. Curry. All I know is what I have heard them say before this 
committee. 

Mr. Wickersham. They have talked to a great many Members ol 
Congress. 

Mr. Curry. Maybe they have ; and if they have they had a right to 
do so. 

The Chairman. I am not committed to any line of action. I want 
all the light I can get, and would regret very much to play into the 
hands of any monopoly, but I want to treat this question in a rational 
way. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think that ought to be done. 

The Chairman. I think there should be some legislation passed to 
regulate the fisheries in Alaska, and I am interested to know what the 
remedies are. 

Mr. Wickersham. It will be said that this bill is substantially the 
bill adopted by the States of Oregon and Washington, and in some 
respects it is identical. But one answer to that is that these same 
lobbyists live in Oregon and Washington, and they have had just as 
much powerful influence there as they hope to have here, with the 
result that they have gotten into the laws of those two States a bill 
that ought not to be there. Not only that, but the fisheries of Oregon 
and Washington, or either one of them, are very small in comparison 
with the fisheries of Alaska. I called your attention to the pro rata 
share of Alaska yesterday for the purpose of showing to you that the 
Oregon and Washington output is very much less than that of 
Alaska. Not only is that true, but this is true. The people of Oregon 
and Washington, as soon as they discovered the frauds that were be- 
ing perpetrated upon them and the attempt which was being made 
to monopolize even their small fisheries, went to work, and I want to 
call your attention now to what they are doing in Washington and 
substantially the same in Oregon. I hold here a copy of the Pacific 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 281 

Fisherman for February, 1916. The Pacific Fisherman is published 
by Miller Freeman, who is, from time to time, one of the fish lobbyists 
here in the city of Washington. He is the representative of the Fish 
Trust which supports this paper. 

The Chairman. What is his name? 

Mr. Wickersham. Miller Freeman. And with Miller Freeman is 
John X. Cobb, who was, for many years, a member of the Bureau of 
Fisheries but who finally graduated into the employment of the trust, 
as did Capt. Moser, and as some others do from time to time be- 
cause they can get better salaries. On page 27 of the Pacific Fisher- 
man 

The Chairman (interposing). Which of these men here to-day 
belong to that trust? I want to spot them. 

Mr. Wickersham. Which of them belong to what trust? 

The Chairman. The Fish Trust. 

Mr. Wickersham. Which men do you have reference to ? 

The Chairman. These present to-day. 

Mr. Wickersham. These two gentlemen over here [indicating] 
represent the interests which will be benefited to the greatest extent 
by the passage of this bill. 

The Chairman. To whom do you refer? 

Mr. Wickersham. To Capt. J. J. Reynolds and to Mr. Warren. 

Mr. Warren. I represent the Alaska-Portland Packers 1 Associa- 
tion, an entirely independent concern. 

Mr. Wickersham. And your company owes the Territory of 
Alaska $10,000 and will not pay it, and everything you are doing 
here is in the interest of the Fish Trust. I do not claim that the 
Fish Trust is paying these gentlemen, because they have said they 
are philanthropists, that they are down here for the good of the 
country. They are riding around here in automobiles, having fine 
dinners, and all that sort of thing. 

Mr. Byrnes. Who said they were here as philanthropists? 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, they have disclaimed any interest. 

Mr. Byrnes. I do not know one of them, and I have not met Capt. 
Reynolds, but I take it for granted that those gentlemen are here 
representing some fisheries company in which they are interested. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Byrnes. I did not suppose they were here claiming to be 
philanthropists, but I think they have the right to come here to 
present their side of the matter. If I had a business and some legis- 
lation was pending affecting my business I would come before the 
committee, would I not? 

Mr. Wickersham. I heard the President of the United States 
not long ago denounce insidious lobbies. 

Mr. Byrnes. What is an insidious lobby? 

Mr. Wickersham. You will have to go to the President to get 
that definition. 

Mr. Byrnes. We have heard all sorts of individuals and organiza- 
tions called insidious lobbies. The Anti-Saloon League has been 
very much interested in certain legislation, and yet if you call them 
an insidious lobby they are ready to fight. You might call all of 
them lobbyists, but I think men interested in a business affected by 
some pending legislation have some rights. 



282 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. I may resent too .much the vast influences 
which have been here for years and which I have had to fight as 
the representative of the people of Alaska, who sent me here for 
the purpose of defending these fisheries. I may resent it too much, 
and if there is any gentleman who thinks I do I am willing to 
apologize for resenting it. 

Mr. Byrnes. I do not think it is quite right — without knowing 
anything about the facts — to charge these gentlemen with belonging 
to an insidious lobby until 3^011 tell us something you know that has 
caused you to reach that conclusion. 

Mr. Wickersham. An insidious lobbyist does not come here and 
register himself as such. 

Mr. Byrnes. No; but if you know them you ought to tell us. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am telling you what I do know. 

Mr. Byrnes. All you say you know is that these gentlemen repre- 
sent themselves as philanthropists. If a man comes here and repre- 
sents a packing house and says he is a philanthropist I begin to doubt 
the truth of his statement, but if a man comes here and says, " I am 
interested in' this legislation because it affects my business," I say 
he has a perfect right to do so. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, Capt. Reynolds, for instance, does not 
claim to have any interests in Alaska ; he said that to the committee. 
He said that his only interest was in one little cannery down on the 
coast of Oregon. 

Capt. Reynolds. I told the committee, at least I meant to infer, 
that my interest here was to tell the committee any facts that they 
might desire to know. 

Mr. Wickersham. Did the committee send for you ? 

Capt. Reynolds. No. 

Mr. Wickersham. The committee did not send for you and I did 
not send for you. I have had this thing to contend with for years. 

The Chairman. This has been the attitude of this committee since 
I have been a member of it. We have never excluded a man or re- 
fused to grant him a hearing if he had an interest in the subject 
matter being considered by the committee. Now, we consider his 
interest in giving weight to his suggestions, just like we would any 
other man's suggestions. My understanding of an insidious lobby is 
a lobby made up of men who seek by dark methods— — 

Mr. Byrnes (interposing). Circuitous routes? 

The Chairman (continuing). Or by corrupt methods to defeat or 
promote legislation. If there is any such lobby as that here I do not 
believe it has come in contact with the members of this committee, 
and I am very sure that if it did it would not have any standing 
with the committee. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am sure of that, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I think this committee is as free from any in- 
fluence of that kind as any body of men could possibly be. 

Mr. Curry. I think that is true as to every member of the com- 
mittee with the possible exception of myself, but, of course, as the 
judge says, they do not have to see me. 

Mr. Goodwin. I will say that I know none of these gentlemen; I 
have never seen any of them except in this committee room outside 
of Capt. Reynolds, who is stopping at the hotel where I stop. I 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 283 

presume I met him, but I did not remember his name until last night, 
when somebody called him Capt. Reynolds. I did not know his busi- 
ness ami he has never spoken to me directly or indirectly, nor has 
anybody else, about the measures pending here. 

Mr. Wickersham. Of course, they have been before the other com- 
mittees Aery fully and made their statements just as they are making 
them here. They have been appearing before committees during 
all of these years, and I have a book of evidence taken before the 
other committees filled with their statements. Some of these gentle- 
men always appear, always fight, and always do everything they can 
to prevent what I think is good legislation for Alaska ; and I may 
resent it too much, but I hope not. 

Mr. Hardy. The sum and substance of all this is that these men in- 
terested in legislation have the right, and exercise it, to become before 
committees of Congress and present their interests, and, as Judge 
Alexander says, we are always ready to hear them. At the same time 
we weigh the relations of everybody who comes before the com- 
mittee. 

The Chairman. I would like to know all about the people who 
come before the committee and what their relations are. There can 
not be too much light given to me. 

Mr. Wickersham. I want to call your attention to the fact that the 
tentative bill, as it is called, was prepared by the Bureau of Fisheries 
and these representatives together and not by the Delegate of Alaska, 
who was never consulted. 

Mr. Greene. That is what I was just going to ask. 

Mr. Wickersham. I was never consulted about these matters. 

Mr. Greene. Who prepared the bill? 

Mr. Wickersham. The Bureau of Fisheries and these gentlemen. 
I do not mean to say these particular gentlemen, but Mr. Warren's 
brother and other gentlemen when they were here at other sessions 
of Congress. They prepared the original bill, but this is the worst 
of all. 

Mr. Warren. Was it not called the Jones tentative bill? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Warren. Did not the Senate committee prepare it ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; it did not. 

Mr. Byrxes. Before what committee was that bill considered? 

Mr. Wickersham. It was before the Committee on Fisheries in the 
Senate. 

Mr. Byrnes. Was it ever reported? 

Mr. Wickersham. It never was. 

Mr. Byrnes. Who is the Jones referred to? 

Mr. Wickersham. Senator Jones, of the State of Washington. 
Mr. Chairman, let me call your attention to Senate joint memorial 
No. 26, of the Alaska Legislature, passed by the senate on April 26, 
1913, and by the house April 30, 1913, all of which I would like to 
have go in the record. It apears on pages 413, 414, and 415 of the 
session laws of 1913 of Alaska. I will read only two sections of 
it now : 

We object generally to the whole bill prepared by and entitled " Tentative 
draft of bill suggested by the United States Bureau of Fisheries and the repre- 
sentatives of the various Alaskan fisheries, winch has been agreed upon and 



284 ALASKA FISHEKIES. 

prepared by them jointly after numerous conferences," and especially to section 
1 thereof, reading : " All of the license fees and taxes derived from Alaska 
fisheries shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States and there 
kept in special fund," on the ground that the Territory of Alaska is entitled to 
a reasonable proportion of the revenue derived from the fishing industry of the 
Territory. 

On the next page : 

And we further recommend that no law be enacted by Congress whereby any 
right or title to the tidelands or waters now occupied by fishing appliances in 
Alaska can be acquired for fish-trap sites, nor any areas of tideland or water 
be in any way reserved for the operation of any certain kind of fishing con- 
trivances to the exclusion of other fishing gear. 

I forgot to put that in the record yesterday. 
(Said joint memorial, in full, follows:) 

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, .Your memorialists, the Legislative Assembly of the 

Territory of Alaska, do most respectfully and earnestly represent that — 

Whereas the fishing industry of Alaska, now in the early stages of develop- 
ment, bids fair to be the greatest industry of its kind in the world ; and 

Whereas we believe the waters of Alaska and the fish therein to be the prop- 
erty of the people and heritage of future generations ; and 

Whereas we believe it to be our duty to use every effort toward the protection 
and conservation of this great natural food supply of the Nation ; and 

Whereas the history of the fisheries of this Nation shows us that the depletion 
and destruction of migratory fish has been caused by the lack of restriction 
and regulation of the methods of fishing ; and 

Whereas the salmon fishery of this Territory is being prosecuted for the pur- 
pose of obtaining dividends for the present and without due regard for the 
conservation of the fish supply for future generations ; and 

Whereas we believe that upon the restriction and regulation of the gear and 
methods of fishing now depends the future of this great industry : Therefore 
Your memorialists earnestly and respectfully petition your honorable body 

that laws be enacted for the regulation of our salmon fisheries in accordance 

with the following recommendations : 

1. The abolishment of the contrivance known as a jigger in connection with 
all fishing traps, pound nets, or weirs. 

2. The limiting of all leads on all fish traps to a length of 600 feet in entirety. 

3. That no fish traps, pound nets, or weirs be allowed within a distance of 1 
mile of any salmon stream nor in any bay, estuary, inlet, or channel which is 
less than a mile in width, and that traps now established within such limits be 
removed. 

4. That the Fisheries Bureau be instructed and authorized to establish posts 
or monuments at the mouths of all salmon streams which shall limit the dis- 
tance from such streams at which any kind of fishing gear may be used, and 
that such marked limits be established by practical fishermen who are familiar 
with all the conditions that obtain in localities in which such marked limits 
are to be established. The term " mouth " of a stream shall be defined to mean 
the place where the line of mean low tide meets and crosses the trend of the 
stream. 

5. We object generally to the whole bill prepared by and entitled " Tentative 
draft of bill suggested by the United States Bureau of Fisheries and the repre- 
sentatives of the various Alaskan fisheries, which has been agreed upon and 
prepared by them jointly after numerous conferences," and especially to sec- 
tion 1 thereof, reading: "All of the license fees and taxes derived from Alaska 
fisheries shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States and there kept 
in special fund," on the ground that the Territory of Alaska is entitled to a 
reasonable proportion of the revenue derived from the fishing industry of the 
Territory. 

6. We further recommend that it shall be made unlawful to take any salmon 
from any fresh-water stream by means of a spear or gaff except for personal, 
domestic, or family consumption, and it shall be unlawful to purchase any 
salmon taken by means of a spear or gaff from a fresh-water stream for use in 
canning, salting, or otherwise preserving for sale. 



ALASKA FISI1KRIKS. 285 

7. Thai a closed season be established for southeastern Alaska from September 
l to December oi of each year as to fishing for any kind of fish above the 
mouths Of any and all streams and outside the mouths of any and all streams 
during said closed season for soekeye and humpback salmon. 

Further, that tin 1 Governmenl operate all fish hatcheries of Alaska; and 

Further, that at the hearings held before the fishing and game joint com- 
mittees of the Territorial legislature it was fully demonstrated that illegal 
fishing was carried on in nearly all of the localities and the inspection system 
as now inaugurated by the Fisheries Bureau is greatly inadequate to carry on 
proper inspection. 

Ami wo further recommend that no law be enacted by Congress whereby any 
right or title to the tide lands or waters now occupied by fishing appliances in 
Alaska can be acquired for fish-trap sites, nor any areas of tide land or water 
be in any way reserved for the operation of any certain kind of fishing con- 
trivances to the exclusion of other fishing gear. 

And your memorialists will ever pray. 

Mr. Bower. May I say a word in connection with the Senate bill 
to which Judge Wickersham has referred? I was before that com- 
mittee in 1912 in the interest of the Bureau of Fisheries, as was also 
Dr. Evermann. The tentative draft which Judge Wickersham has 
spoken of was prepared after extended hearings had been held before 
the committee. The Bureau of Fisheries was very largely instru- 
mental in drawing up that draft; representatives of the several com- 
panies were heard and various Members of the Senate appeared be- 
for that committee — Senator Chamberlain, Senator Bourne, of Ore- 
gon, and others. The tentative draft was merely drawn up for the 
information of the Senate Fisheries Committee, and Senator Jones 
had a great deal to do with the preparation of that draft, as I re- 
member it. I think Judge Wickersham omitted some features of 
the discussions that took place at that time, so I merely invite your 
attention to the matter. 

Mr. Wickersham. That tentative bill was drawn after the Flood 
bill was introduced. 

Mr. Bower. I believe it was introduced at about the same time. 

Mr. Wickersham. No; the tentative bill was never introduced. 
We had long hearings, and all the evidence is here, before the Com- 
mittee on Fisheries in the Senate, and they refused to report it 
favorably. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I started to call your attention to the protest 
that the people of Washington are making against this bill, which 
they are offering to you as representative of the wishes of the people 
of a great State. At page 27 of this Pacific Fisherman, of February. 
1916, under the head " New initiative bill affecting Washington 
fisheries " is this editorial statement : 

The direct legislative league, composed of fake farmers, walking delegates, 
and petition pushers working on percentage, has filed a new initiative bill designed 
to graft on the people engaged in the commercial fisheries of the State of Wash- 
ington. This bill is to be voted on next fall if sufficient signatures are secured. 
Following is the text of this measure. 

Then follows the text of the measure, which has been filed with 
the secretary of state of Washington and which is to be voted on by 
the people of Washington next fall, if in the meantime they file a 
sufficient petition. I call your attention, in my own defense rather 
than because it is necessary, to the fact that the men who are making 
an effort in the State of Washington to do away with this scheme 
they are trying to impose on Alaska are called fake farmers, walking 



286 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

delegates, and petition pushers working on percentage. I have been 
called all of those and many other less complimentary names by these 
same people, so if sometimes I get a little out of humor it may not 
be surprising. I want this whole bill to go into the record, if the com- 
mittee will permit, because it is the opposite of what the law is now 
in the State of Washington and it is the opposite of what this bill is 
in almost every material particular. For instance, in section 3 of 
this initiative bill it is provided : 

Sec 3. Section 34 of the Fisheries Code of Washington is amended to read 
as follows : 

" Sec. 34. Pound nets or fish traps prohibited and set nets regulated in Puget 
Sound. 

" It shall be unlawful to fish for salmon with any pound net or fish trap 
in Puget Sound, nor shall any set net of any greater length than 500 feet or 
in the form of a pound net or with pots or hearts connected therewith or that 
is used or held in any other way than in a substantially straight line be allowed 
in Puget Sound." 

That is all I want to read to the committee at this time. 
(The bill referred to follows:) 

This act shall be known as the Fisheries Code of Washington. The pros- 
perity and happiness of all of its people are hereby declared to be the highest 
aim of the State and the protection and utilization of its great natural re- 
sources, to the end that all the functions of government may be economically 
carried on without burdensome and confiscatory taxation being placed upon 
the home builders and real producers of the State, is paramount. Protection 
and conservation of the great sources of food supply are necessary that they 
shall not be monopolized by the few to the detriment and discomfort of the 
many and inasmuch as it has been legally determined that the fish in the 
waters of the State of Washington are the property of said State, it is hereby 
declared that the purposes of this act are to foster the propagation, protection, 
and development of this source of food supply and to create a revenue there- 
from by retaining a portion of the value of its own property from those who 
are herebly allowed to appropriate the same, under the regulations hereinafter 
set forth, the proceeds of which shall be turned into the State treasury for the 
general support of the State government to the end that the burden of taxation 
on its people may thereby be reduced. 

Sec 2. Section 10 of the Fisheries Code of Washington is amended to read 
as follows : 

" Sec. 10. Commission may prohibit fishing. 

" The commission may prohibit fishing for both food and game fish in any 
waters of the State, or any part thereof, should they consider it necessary 
for the protection of the food and game fishes mentioned in this act. When 
the commission shall desire to close any waters of the State to fishing they 
shall publish, in a weekly newspaper in such county or counties in which such 
waters are located for not less than two successive issues, a notice stating that 
from a certain date, which shall not be less than 15 days from the date of first 
publication of said notice, to a date also to be fixed in said notice, said waters 
of the State. or the portion thereof therein described shall be closed to fishing. 
It shall be unlawful to take any of the food or game fishes mentioned in this 
act, by any means whatever, during the closed period defined in such notice." 

Sec 3. Section 34 of the Fisheries Code of Washington is amended to read as 
follows : 

" Sec 34. Pound nets or fish traps prohibited and set nets regulated in Puget 
Sound. 

" It shall be unlawful to fish for salmon with any pound net or fish trap in 
Puget Sound, nor shall any set net of any greater length than five hundred feet 
or in the form of a pound net, or with pots or hearts connected therewith or 
that is used or held in any other way than in a substantially straight line, be 
allowed in Puget Sound." 

Sec 4. Section 48 of the Fisheries Code of Washington is amended to read 
as follows : 

" Sec 48. License fees and fines to general fund. 






ALASKA FISHERIES. 287 

"All license fees and lines collected under the provisions of this act, unless 
otherwise provided herein, shall he paid into the State treasury and placed in 
the general fund to be used for the propagation, protection, and perpetuation 

of food and shell fishes and the administration and enforcement of the laws 
relative thereto and for the general support of the State government." 

Sec. 5. Section 51 of the Fisheries Code of Washington is amended to read 
as follows : 

" Sec. 51. Licenses and fees. 

" Every person, firm, or corporation operating in the waters of the State of 
Washington any of the fishing appliances which, by the terms of this act. are 
required to he licensed shall in addition to the license fees by this act provided, 
pay to the State for the food and shellfish taken from the waters thereof as 
follows : 

" For each Chinook, tyee, king, black mouth, or spring salmon caught, 15 
cents. 

"For each steel-head salmon caught, 6 cents. 

" For each sock eye or blue hack salmon caught, 3 cents. 

" For each silverside or cohoe salmon caught, 2 cents. 

" For each chum or dog salmon caught, 1 cent. 

" For each humpback or pink salmon caught, one-fourth cent. 

" For each 100 pounds or fraction thereof of smelt or herring caught, 5 cents. 

" For each 100 pounds or fraction thereof, shad or cod caught, 25 cents. 

" For each 100 pounds or fraction thereof of shrimp caught, 25 cents. 

" For each sturgeon caught, 30 cents. 

" For each gross of crabs caught, 15 cents. 

" For each ton of clams, gross weight in shells, 75 cents. 

" Licenses herein required shall be issued to any qualified person or corpo- 
ration by the commissioner upon application therefor and the payment of 
license fees herein required. 

" For each pound net or fish trap, purse seine, gill net. stationary fish wheel, 
scow fish wheel, dragnet, set net, reef net, drag seine, bag net, beam trawl, or 
set line used in taking fish, a license fee of $1. 

" For each license to take crabs, $1. 

" For each license to take clams or mussels, $1. 

" For each license to take oysters for seed purposes from the State re- 
serves, $1. 

" For each private hatchery of any food fish, a license of $1. 

" For every person, firm, or corporation engaged in canning food or shellfish., 
a license of $1 for each cannery operated. 

" For every person, firm, or corporation engaged in the wholesale or retail 
buying and selling, -.packing and preserving, freezing, salting, smoking, kip- 
pering, preserving in ice or otherwise, a license fee of .$1. 

" For each person, firm, or corporation using scows, boats, or other water- 
craft in the buying of fish on the Columbia River, for each scow, boat, or other 
water craft, a license fee of $50. 

" For all other persons, linns, or corporations using scows, boats, or other 
water craft in buying, handling, or transferring food or shellfish in the State 
of Washington, for each scow, boat, or other water craft, a license fee of $1. 

" For all the purposes of this act the commissioner shall determine the class 
and character of each fishing appliance. 

" Every person engaged in buying fish shall obtain a permit from the com- 
missioner for each representative of such buyer. 

"The license issued by the commissioner for the appliances hereinbefore 
mentioned shall specify the district wherein the license is to be used, and no 
license for one district shall he used in another." 

Sec. 6. Section 52 of the Fisheries Code of Washington is amended to read 
as follows : 

"Sec. 52. Reports to commissioner. 

" Every owner of any fishing appliance which by the terms of this act is 
required to be licensed shall report to the commissioner under oath on blanks 
to be furnished by the commissioner, upon request, not later than the tenth day 
of each month of each year, for the month preceding the date on which the 
report is made, stating the number of salmon (species stated separately), the 
number of crabs, sturgeons, pounds of smelt, herring, shrimps, clams in shell, 
shad, cod. and other food fish caught during the preceding month, together with 
the names of the person, persons, firm, or corporation to whom such fish were 



288 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

sold, with the number or quantity delivered to each purchaser, and shall at the 
same time remit the fees thereon as by this act provided ; and every person, 
firm, or corporation engaged in canning, preserving, salting, smoking, kippering, 
mild curing, curing, freezing, preserving in ice or otherwise, and in buying, selling, 
or otherwise dealing in food and shellfish caught within the waters of this State, 
as wholesalers or retailers, either as principal, agent, or employee, shall on the 
same dates and for. the same period make reports to the commissioner, stating 
the number of salmon (species stated separately), the number of crabs, stur- 
geon, pounds of smelt, herring, shrimps, clams, shad, cod, and other food fish 
canned, preserved, or cured, and all purchases or sales made during the preced- 
ing period for which the report is made, together with the name of the person, 
persons, firms, or corporations from whom procured, and the place from which 
the fish were taken and appliances with which the same were taken. Any per- 
son, firm, or corporation who shall fail to make the reports herein provided or 
at the same time fail to make payments of the amount of money due the State 
shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not 
less than $50 nor more than $5,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for 
not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment, and the amounts 
owing by any such j)erson for license and additional fees shall become and con- 
stitute a first lien on the fishing appliances of any such person, and also \ipon 
the fish, upon which said fees have not been paid, as well as a lien on the real 
and personal property of the person owning or liable for such sum or sums, from 
and after a notice of such lien on behalf of the State shall have been filed in the 
office of the county auditor of the county in which the person owing or liable for 
such amount or amounts shall reside. A notice of lien to be filed by the commis- 
sioner shall be sufficient if it shall state the amount for which the lien is 
claimed and the person owing or liable for the same : Provided, That upon con- 
viction of the second offense a penalty of imprisonment of not less than ten days 
or more than one year shall be inflicted upon the person so convicted, and in the 
case of a firm or corporation being convicted of the second offense the imprison- 
ment shall be inflicted upon the managing head thereof residing in this State. 

" The lien provided for herein on the fish shall exist and continue even in case 
such fish shall have been sold by the person catching the same and shall con- 
tinue in full force and effect even in case said fish are canned or otherwise pre- 
served, and for the purpose of protecting himself or itself from such lien any 
person engaged in buying such fish from the persons catching the same may 
deduct from the purchase price the amount of the fees herein provided for and 
remit the same to the commissioner at the time of making the report provided 
for herein. 

" Each person who catches fish in the waters of the State of Washington, 
which fish such person does not sell as a fresh product, but either cans, freezes, 
salts, smokes, kippers, preserves in ice, cures, mild cures, or preserves in any 
other manner prior to selling the same, shall pay to the State of Washington the 
same amounts for each kind of fish caught as hereinbefore specified." 

Sec. 7. Section 58 of the Fisheries Code of Washington is amended to read 
as follows : 

" Sec. 58. Right to take fish limited to citizens. 

" It shall be unlawful for any person to fish or take for sale or profit or any 
other purpose whatsoever any salmon or other food fish or shellfish in any of 
the rivers or waters of this State or over which it has concurrent jurisdiction in 
civil and criminal cases, unless such person be a citizen of the United States or 
has declared his intention to become such and is and has been for twelve 
months immediately prior to the time he engages in such business an actual 
resident of this State, but this section shall not apply to Indians." 

Sec. 8. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act are hereby repealed. 

In Washington the people are trying to repeal the law which the 
Fish Trust is now trying to have this committee favorably report. I 
do not know whether the people of Washington will repeal it or not, 
but they have offered it under the initiative and referendum clause of 
their law, and I presume they wall do their best to repeal it. 

The Chairman. That proposes to amend it. 

Mr. Wickersham. It proposes to abolish fish traps wholly, as well 
as pound nets, in the waters of Washington, because they know they 
are the most destructive ways in which to catch fish and because they 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 289 

are so easily monopolized. By doing that they will protect and pre- 
serve their fisheries. 

I received this telegram from the secretary of state of Wash- 
ington : 

Initiative 1*111 filed abolishes all pound net and trap fishing; necessary peti- 
tion to contain 30,000 not yet tiled ; must he tiled by July 6 or measure defaults. 

I. M. Howeix, 
Secretary of State. 

They have a month yet in which to file that petition, and I assume 
they will do so. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to you. about these excessive 
taxes for just a moment. Gov. Strong's statement to you was that 
the tax upon Alaska canneries was not inequitable. Gov. Strong 
himself approved the act of the legislature which they are criticizing, 
the act which put an additional tax upon canned salmon in Alaska. 
Gov. Strong knew- the situation; he and the legislature in Alaska 
knew it ; they knew what was going on there ; they knew how much 
these people were charging for fish; they knew the whole situation; 
and they knew they were not paying, in proportion, as much as the 
rest of the people of the Territory of Alaska, and therefore acting 
within the law, as they thought, and as no doubt the court will hold, 
imposed an additional tax upon them. 

I want to talk to you about the man who drew that bill. The 
Legislature of Alaska at its last session came to the fifty-eighth day 
without action. They can only hold a session of 60 days, and on the 
night of the fifty-eighth day they did not have any revenue law 
passed or even agreed upon. They did not have any revenue law 
passed because they were surrounded by men who knew what they 
wanted and who were greatly interested in preventing the passage 
of the law. But the governor advised them on the night of the fifty- 
eighth day that if they did not pass a revenue law for the support 
of the Territory of Alaska he would call them in special session im- 
mediately after they adjourned, and, rather than have a condition 
of that kind obtain in the Territory, and rather than have a rebuke 
of that kind from the governor, who is responsible for the govern- 
ment, on the night of the fifty-eighth day they set to work to pass 
this revenue law. Mr. Heckman started the matter. He offered a 
motion or resolution requiring the appointment of a special commit- 
tee to take up the revenue law. I mention his name because he is 
the representative there of the Alaska Packers' Association and has 
been for 20 years their general manager in the waters of Alaska. He 
has more to do with their business than all the other men in south- 
eastern Alaska. He is a very good citizen except for the fact that 
he always represents the special interests rather than the interests of 
the people of the Territory. I have here — and I am not going to 
read it all — the journal of the house of the Legislature of Alaska for 
1915. This journal shows that Mr. Heckman moved that: 

The speaker appoint a special committee of five, one from each division, the 
fifth to he the speaker, to draft a license-tax bill and present the same to the 
house at 11 a. m., April 28. Motion duly seconded and carried. In accordance 
therewith the speaker appointed the following: Mr. Heckman, from the first; 
Mr. GetChell, from the second ; Mr. Noon, from the third ; Mr. Snow, from the 
fourth ; Mr. Speaker. 



290 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Those men met and within the next 48 hours they reported a bill. 
It was passed, and it is the law that is now before you and which is 
being criticized by these representatives of cannery interests. Mr. 
Heckman told the governor — and he testified to it in his statement be- 
fore the Committee on Territories — that if they would pass that bill 
with the low rates in it. and all that, that he and the Alaska Packers' 
Association and the big canners would stand by it and pay their 
taxes. Upon that statement to the governor and to the people he got 
that bill through ; but they have not paid their taxes ; they are fighting 
it and doing everything within their power to avoid the payment of 
the taxes levied under it. Mr. Britton appeared before this commit- 
tee as attorney for the Alaska Packers' Association, and he is en- 
deavoring to secure the repeal of the law which was passed at that 
time, and which they agreed to support. There are some other things 
about it which I will not mention. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if you were in Seattle along about the 1st of 
May you would be very greatly interested if you would go down to 
the wharves. In Seattle, Astoria, or the city of San Francisco, you 
would see all sorts of vessels lined up around those wharves. You 
would see the boats and ships being loaded with men, with fishing 
gear, and all kinds of mercantile goods. You would see Chinese and 
Japanese, Mexicans, Filipinos, and hundreds of strange men put into 
these vessels, and much merchandise, which they do not purchase in 
Alaska. They do not buy one cent's worth in Alaska. They sail 
away from those wharves, sail through the Aleutian Pass into Bris- 
tol Bay and into these Alaskan harbors. Within two months they 
catch and can $20,000,000 worth of fish. They work day and night, 
and the fish keep going into cans every minute, because the run is 
short. Within two months after getting into Alaska they load their 
catch into the ships, load their men, and sail away to Seattle, Port- 
land, and San Francisco, where they pay the men off, and Alaska is 
just out another big crop" of fish. Those who have been in the busi- 
ness have raised the price, as I have shown, from $1, $1.68, and $1.72 
up to $2.25. They make millions out of it, and now they have grown 
so arrogant they want the title to the fisheries. 

I have gone over this matter for the purpose of calling your atten- 
tion to the fact that the people who do this business in Alaska are not 
Alaskans ; they are not even all American citizens. One of them, one 
of the big canners for many years, was a Chinaman. They run Chi- 
nese crews up there, and the way they treat them is un-American. 
Everything has been done by the district attorney at Seattle to 
prosecute them and convict them for peonage, but he has not suc- 
ceeded. Their influences are too great around Seattle to secure any 
results of r that land. 

Mr. Curry. A great many white men go up from San Francisco; 
I do not know about Seattle. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is one section in the bill of the State of 
Washington which these gentlemen have forgotten to include in this 
bill. They say this State of Washington bill is a good bill, but they 
do not include all of it. I refer to section 58 of the Fisheries Code of 
Washington, and it reads as follows : 

It shall be unlawful for any person to fish or take for sale or profit any salmon 
or other food or shell fish in any of the rivers or waters of this State, or over 
which it has concurrent jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, unless such 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 291 

person be a citizen of the United States, or has declared his Intention t<> become 
such, and is ;iik1 has been for 12 months immediately prior to the i i mo he 
engages in such business an actual resident of this State or an adjoining State; 
hut this section shall not apply to Indians. 

I call your attention to the fact that those people do not allow 

Alaskans to come down there and fish in their waters, and the words 
" adjoining State " have recently gone into that section. I have 
called this to your attention for the reason that I have been trying to 
get some laws passed here for seven years in order that we might 
have a fishing population in the Territory of Alaska: that we might 
have fishing hamlets and towns; that we might get something out 
of these fisheries with which to build homes, churches, schools, and 
establish civilization there. But, on the contrary, the whole policy 
of these big fish trusts is to take everything out of the Territory and 
not permit anything to come into it. They do not want to pay any 
taxes to the Territory ; they have never built a schoolhouse in the Ter- 
ritory; they have never built a church or a home. They are robbing 
the Territory. I am speaking from the Territorial side now. They 
have robbed the Territory for 30 years of all of its fisheries, and we 
have not gotten anything substantial out of them except the slight 
pittance which the Government has expended up there. 

Now, Mr. Chairman. I want to go over this bill and scan it, because 
there is not a section in it which, in my judgment, ought to be passed. 
There are some sections in it which may appeal to you gentlemen, 
but they are already in the law of Alaska. Everything that is good 
in his bill is already the law of the Territory of Alaska. 

Mr. Byrxes. What is the difference between the present laws of 
Alaska and this bill? 

Mr. Wickersham. If the committee will bear with me, I will point 
that out. Section 1 of this bill provides : 

That it shall be unlawful to engage in the business of taking, catching, fishing 
for, canning, curing, preserving, packing, or otherwise dealing at wholesale in 
food fish or shellfish, or other aquatic animals or the products thereof, in the 
Territory of Alaska or in any of the waters of Alaska over which the United 
States has jursdiction. without first obtaining license therefor, as herein pro- 
vided.. Every person, except employees, engaged in the business of taking, 
catching, fishing for, canning, curing, preserving, packing, or otherwise dealing 
at wholesale in food fish or shellfish, or other acquatic animals, or the products 
thereof, or manufacturing fisheries products, in the Territory of Alaska or in 
any. of the waters of Alaska over which the United States has -jurisdiction, 
shall before commencing operations apply for a license to the Secretary of Com- 
merce, who shall issue the same, and every such person shall, in lieu of all 
other Federal or Territorial license fees and taxes therefor and thereon, pay 
annual license fees and taxes on said business and output as in this act provided. 

I want to call your attention to section 269 of the Compiled Laws 
of Alaska, because I consider it a very important question in connec- 
tion with the criticisms that I shall now undertake to make in refer- 
ence to this bill. Section 269 provides : 

That the catching or killing, except with rod, spear, or gaff, of any fish of any 
kind or species whatsoever in any of the waters of Alaska over which the 
United States has jurisdiction shall be subject to the provisions of this act, 
and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor is hereby authorized to make and 
establish such rules and regulations not inconsistent with law as may be neces- 
sary to carry into effect the provisions of this act. 

There is authority given to the Secretary of Commerce, substan- 
tially without limitation, within the provisions of this act to make 



292 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

rules and regulations governing the fisheries of Alaska. That is 
the power which, under the Constitution, Congress has over the 
Territories. It is the power to make laws. I am not here to point 
out any specific law that the Secretary of Commerce has ever made 
and criticize it. I am calling attention to the fact that he has sub- 
stantially unlimited power to make laws in Alaska for the enforce- 
ment of the acts relating to the fisheries. 

Let us take section 1 again. Section 1, reduced to its simplest 
terms, provides that nobody shall fish without first obtaining a license 
therefor as herein provided. That is the law of Alaska. Section 
2569 provides : 

That any person or persons, corporation, or company prosecuting, or attempt- 
ing to prosecute, any of the following lines of business within the District of 
Alaska shall first apply for and obtain a license so to do from a district court 
or a subdivision thereof in said District, and pay for said license for the re- 
spective lines of business and trade as follows, to wit : 

Fisheries : Salmon canneries, four cents per case ; salmon salteries, ten cents 
per barrel ; fish-oil works, ten cents per barrel ; fertilizer works, twenty cents 
per ton. 

• The Chairman. Is that the act of 1913? 

Mr. Wickersham. That is in the laws of 1913, at page 782. It 
has been the law in Alaska since 1889, and the license has been just 
as much demanded under the United States statute as it is now 
demanded in this section. 

The second part of the section, without reading it again, provides 
that the license shall now be obtained from the Secretary of Com- 
merce. Well, the law heretofore in the Territory of Alaska has 
provided that this license shall be obtained from the clerk of the 
court. The clerk of the court has not only issued the license, but 
has always collected the money. That is the law in Alaska, and has 
been since 1899. The only change in section 1 in respect to those 
matters is that it requires the license to be issued by the Secretary 
of Commerce instead of by the clerk of the court, as heretofore done 
under the United States statute. There is practically nothing new 
in the section. 

Mr. Greene. Does the clerk of the court receive any fee? 

Mr. Wickersham. None whatever. 

Mr. Greene. There is no expense attached to that ? 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no expense attached to that. The 
clerk of the court has a regular force which collects these fees, but 
without any added expense on the United States or the Territory. 
There is no expense to the Government, but if this bill makes that 
change, then we will have a new bureau for the collection of license 
fees in Alaska which will cost you a great deal more than you will 
get from the license fees, not necessarily for canned salmon, because 
they have a complete check on that. Everything which is sent out of 
the Territory of Alaska is checked through the customs department. 
The Bureau of Fisheries does not pay any attention to the amount 
of canned salmon, they do not make any inspection, they do not 
know anything about it. They take the statement of the collector 
of customs. Is not that correct, Mr. Bower ? 

Mr. Bower. We examine carefully the sworn statements submitted 
by the companies. 

Mr. Wickersham. Sure. They merely take a statement handed to 
them and the collection follows, now, without expense. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 293 

Mr. Greene* To collect the taxes fchey would have to travel all 
over the Territory of Alaska? 

Mr. WlCKEBSHAM. 1 have no idea what they would do, but if they 
collected the small taxes mentioned in this bill they certainly would, 
because the canneries are spread over 1,000 miles of frontage. 

Mr. Bower. My judgment is that Judge Wickersham is anticipat- 
ing unusual difficulties along this line. 

Mr. Wickersham. If I am, it is based on my knowledge of the 
situation. 

The Chairman. If they are collected now. without any difficulty, 
through the customhouse, I do not see any added difficulty about the 
collection '( 

Mr. Wickersham. Yon are transferring a lot of these taxes from 
the Fish Trust to the people of Alaska. You are going to collect from 
individuals instead of the people who ship through the customhouse. 
You are going to undertake to tax every man in Alaska who owns a 
little net or a boat or anything of that kind. The burden is being- 
transferred from the Fish Trust to the people of Alaska. 

The Chairman. Those engaged in the fisheries as a wholesale busi- 
ness are to pay the tax. 

Mr. Wickersham. The chairman has not understood the bill as 
I have. 

The Chairman. Let us read the first section and see if you under- 
stand the bill. 

Mr. Wickersham. Maybe not. 

The Chairman (reading) : 

That it shall he unlawful to engage in the business of taking, catching, fishing 
for, canning, curing, preserving, packing, or otherwise dealing at wholesale 
in food fish or shellfish* or oilier aquatic animals or the products thereof, in 
the Territory of Alaska, or in any of the waters of Alaska over which the United 
States has jurisdiction, without first obtaining license therefor as herein pro- 
vided. Every person, except employees engaging in the business of taking, 
catching, fishing for, canning, curing, preserving, packing, or otherwise dealing 
at wholesale 

Mr. Wickersham (interposing). No, sir. 
The Chairman (continuing) : 

in food fish or shellfish, or other aquatic animals or the products thereof, 
or manufacturing fisheries products, in the Territory of Alaska, or in any of 
the waters of Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction, shall before 
commencing operations apply for a license to the Secretary of Commerce, who 
shall issue the same, and every such person shall, in lieu of all other Federal 
or Territorial license fees and taxes therefor and thereon, pay annual license 
fees and taxes on said business and output as in this act provided. 

It is those engaged in the wholesale business and not the retailers 
or the people who catch them for their own use. It is only those en- 
gaged in the business at wholesale. 

Mr. Wickersham. That section is very plain, but the second sec- 
tion provides : 

That a license fee of $5 shall ho imposed and paid for each canning, mild- 
curing, salting, smoking, fish-freezinu", whaling, or other wholesale fish-dealing 
establishment ; for each fish-fertilizer and fish-oil works, and for each other 
fishery establishment, except retail markets not herein specified. 

For each pound net, $50: for each fish wheel, $2.1. 

And it includes purse seines, trawl nets, and things of that kind. 
They will collect all of the small license fees provided in section 2. 
46232— ft 5—16 3 



294 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. You are begging the question. I am talking 
about section 1. You said that I was not correct. Am I correct? 

Mr. Wickeesham. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then, take up section 2. 

Mr. Wickersham. If you limit yourself to section 1, you are cor- 
rect. 

The Chairman. That is all I am talking about. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is not what I was talking about. 

The Chairman. We were talking about section 1. 

Mr. Wickersham. I was talking about the whole bill. 

The Chairman. You said that we would take up the bill section 
by section, and you were discussing section 1. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I want to go back and say that if this 
bill passes giving this bureau the right to collect these license fees 
in Alaska it will collect the license fees mentioned in sections 1 and 
2 and do away with the collections which now go through the United 
States district court clerk, and the bureau will have to institute an- 
other branch for the collection of fees in Alaska. 

Mr. Byrnes. Which will create places? 

Mr. Wickersham. Which will create many good jobs at $2,500 
a year each. 

Mr. Bower. I am quite confident that the bureau's agents now on 
duty in Alaska can attend to this work with the possible addition 
of a clerk or two. 

Mr. Wickersham. I had control of this matter for eight years 
in Alaska as United States district judge, and so I know something 
about it. I appointed the clerk of the court who collected this 
money. If the clerk of the court had to go out and collect the new 
fees fixed in this bill, he 'would have to have a group of new clerks 
and collectors to do it, and it would cost many thousand dollars. 

Mr. Bower. The clerk of the court has called on us at times to 
assist in collecting the taxes. 

Mr. Wickersham. He has the right to do that under the law. 

Mr. Bower. And I myself have given him some assistance. 

Mr. Wickersham. It did not cost anything extra. 

Mr. Bower. It is right in line with our work. 

Mr. Wickersham. He has the right to call on the district attorney ? 

Mr. Bower. And the marshal. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir ; the clerk of the court, for that reason, 
has a wider range of servants to assist him than you would have. 

Mr. Bower. The clerk of the court has no field force for such 
duty. 

Mr. Wickersham. The phrase " field force " is a happy one. They 
will want a " field force " to collect these taxes. That, however, is 
not, Mr. Chairman, a fundamental objection to this bill. To my 
mind there are two fundamental objections — first, the monopoly, and, 
second, the release of the trusts from taxation. 

Mr. Greene. That if quite vital if it is going to cost more to col- 
lect the money than it will be worth after you make the collection? 

Mr. Wickersham. My judgment is that it will, except as to the 
cannery money. That will not cost them anything. 

The Chairman. How do they collect the taxes on the traps ? 

Mr. Wickersham. They do not collect any. 

The Chairman. Is that under the Territorial legislature ? 






ALASKA FISHERIES. 295 

Mr. Wickersham. Through the clerk of the court. 

The Chairman. There is just one man? 

Mr. Wickersham. The attorney general of the Territory of Alaska 
looks after it, and it is collected through the clerk of the court. 

The Chairman. How much would it cost to collect it I 

Mr. Wickersham. Let me apologize for saying that they pay it; 
they do not. 

The Chairman. They have ascertained what is a possible liability, 
and it is only a question of the authority of the Territorial legislature 
to pass the law ? 

Mr. Wickersham. But the Territorial legislature has not under- 
taken to collect a thousand and one little items of this kind. There 
may be some way of working that out. 

Mr. Byrnes. That is an administrative feature? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. I am not making very much of a point 
about it, Section 1 of the bill provides for the taxes mentioned there, 
and 

Every person, except employees, engaging in the business of taking, catching, 
fishing for. canning, curing, preserving, packing, or otherwise dealing at whole- 
sale in food fish or shellfish, or other aquatic animals or the products thereof, or 
manufacturing lisheries products in the Territory of Alaska or in any of the 
waters of Alaska over which the United States has jurisdiction, shall before 
commencing operations apply for a license to the Secretary of Commerce, who 
shall issue the same, and every such person shall, in lieu of all other Federal or 
Territorial license fees and taxes therefor and thereon, pay annual license fees 
and taxes on said business and output as in this act provided. 

The words " in lieu of all other Federal or Territorial license fees 
and taxes therefor and thereon " should come out of the bill, even if it 
passes. There ought to be no obvious loopholes left. It may be in 
lieu of the income tax. because that is a Federal tax. I very greatly 
doubt if you pass the bill whether you can make a man engaged in the 
fisheries even pay the income tax. He would not have to pay any- 
thing else. I am only suggesting that. I am not sure about it, but I 
suggest it to the committee. It may be in lieu of their corporation 
tax. It may cover a great variety of things. 

Section 2 provides : 

That a license fee of $5 shall be imposed for each canning, mild-curing, 
salting, smoking, fish-freezing, whaling, or other wholesale fish-dealing estab- 
lishment: for each fish- fertilizer and fish-oil works, and for each other fishery 
establishment, except retail markets, not herein specified. 

Mr. Chairman, under all the provisions of this bill — I want to 
make a point of that hereafter, so that there will not be any mis- 
take — the sum of $5 is all the owner would have to pay on a can- 
nery. The cannery might be worth $1,000,000. They have $10,- 
000,000 worth of shore property in Alaska canneries, and they are 
singly very valuable real estate. They would only have to pay $5 
each on those canneries under this bill. 

The Chairman. How much do they pay under the Territorial law 
which is noAv in controversy? 

Mr. Wickersham. They do not pay anything. 

The Chairman. Then, they would be just that much better off? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; they would be just that much worse off, 
because the other provisions of the bill prohibit the Territory levy- 
ing a property tax on the canneries. 



296 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. As I understood you the other day, the reason 
the Territory did not levy a property tax on the canneries was that 
they were scattered, and the cost of collecting the tax would amount 
to about 60 per cent of the tax. 

Mr. Wickersham. That statement was made, I think, by some- 
body; probably I made it; but I think I read it from Mr. Cobb's 
statement. 

The Chairman. Then you agree that they are so scattered and the 
coast line is so vast that it will be very expensive to collect a tax of 
that sort? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I do not think so. They would have to be 
visited,, of course, by an assessor. 

Mr. Byrnes. That is the property tax? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrnes. They would hav^e to pay it? 

Mr. Wickersham. Everybody else has to pay it but them. 

I want to call your attention to the fact that they would not have 
to pay anything on the $10,000,000 of shore property under that pro- 
vision, except $5. The total amount which the canneries would have 
to pay under this $5 clause was, I think, Mr. Bower, you stated was 
about $750? 

Mr. Bower. On the basis of 1913, $735. 

Mr. Wickersham. Of which the Territory of Alaska would get 
one-half. 

Mr. Byrnes. Under what provision? 

Mr. Wickersham. Under the provisions of the bill. 

Mr. Byrnes. Who would pay that? 

Mr. Wickersham. The canneries on their shore property worth 
$10,000,000, and the Territory would get $350 or $375. The Terri- 
tory of Alaska does not want the $375. 

The Chairman. They would pay that tax on the property and then 
pay a tax on the output ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; but the Territory would only get one-half 
of that. You are decreasing the tax upon their output very largely, 
and Mr. Britton, who appeared here the other day in behalf of the 
Alaska Packers' Association, which needs it so badly, begged that 
it be still further reduced. 

I am not going to read section 2. It provides for the payment 
of all sorts of small taxes on a great many varieties of property. I 
only want to make this criticism of that portion which provides for 
these taxes on the people of Alaska. They are burdensome. They 
will be hard to collect. It is a mere transfer of the burden of taxa- 
tion from these big interests, who have looted and exploited our 
fisheries for 40 years, to the people who are trying to work along 
those shores and build up fishing communities. They should be 
given some assistance rather than be punished for going there and 
building their homes. 

I want to call your attention to the third clause in section 2 : 

Every licensee employing any fishing appliance or method hereinbefore men- 
tioned shall, by December thirty-first of each year, in addition to the license 
fees by this act provided, pay for the raw aquatic products taen by him, as 
follows : 

Mr. Greene. What are you reading from? 

Mr. Wickersham. Section 2, on page 3, lines 3 to 13. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 297 

For king Chinook or spring salmon, and for steel-head troul or salmon al the 
rate of $2 per thousand fish; for ted, sbckteye, or blueback salmon at the fate 
of *i per thousand fish; for <<>lio or silver* salmon and for chum or keta" 
salmon, al the rate of 7r> cents per thousand fish; and for humpback or pink 
salmon, at the iate of 50 cents per thousand fish. 

That puts the burden upon the small fishermen of Alaska. For 
instance, the small fisherman who owns his home in Alaska, his own 
nets, boats, etc., who catches fish, will take them to the cannery where 
they will take the tax out of his output. Of course, it works the other 
way. for the cannery people will have to pay, too. It is general, and 
they will have to pay. But if you are going" to consider that matter, 
then you ought to consider the value of the fish. 

In this initiative bill they have a clause of that kind that I want 
to call your attention to. Section 51 of the initiative bill, found in 
the Pacific Fisherman, provides that — 

Every person, firm, or corporation operating in the waters of the State of 
Washington any of the fishing appliances which by the terms of this act are 
required to be licensed shall, in addition to the license fees by this act provided, 
pay to the State for the food and shellfish taken from the waters thereof as 
follows : 

For each chinook, tyee, king, black mouth, or spring salmon caught, 15 cents. 

Xot per thousand, but for each of them. 
Mr. Byrnes. That is in the Washington law? 
Mr. Wickersham. jSTo ; in this initiative law. 
Mr. Byrnes. That will never pass. 
Mr. Wickersham. Maybe not. 

For each steelhead caught, 6 cents ; for each sockeye or blueback salmon 
caught, 3 cents. 

Mr. Byrnes. What is one worth? 

Mr. Wickersham. Here [exhibiting] is a copy of the Dailv Alaska 
Dispatch of Sunday, May 21, 1916. It says : 

Dollar paid for salmon present time. Plenty of buyers at prices charged. 
Fishermen are making good money, and the run of salmon promises well. 

I am quoting from a newspaper, so I am not going to swear to it. 

One dollar for each salmon caught. This is the price now being paid for 
" reds," according to word from Kake. 

The price is 25 cents for " whites " and 11, S, and 6 cents per pound for 
mild-cured salmon, according to grade. 

What is better still, the salmon are running freely in the vicinity of Kake, 
with buyers offering for all that can be caught. 

About every boat that can he pressed into service is now busy. The price of 
$1 for each salmon is like getting money from home. Of course, it requires a 
great deal of equipment and expense in properly outfitting for catching the 
salmon, but even trollers can get a pinch of change at the price now paid. 

I call jouv attention to the Pacific Fisherman again. In the issue 
for January, 1916, under the head of " Quiniault salmon to be high," 
on page 16, it says: 

The latest advices from the Quiniault River are to the effect that the follow- 
ing scale of prices for Quiniault salmon will prevail the coming season : In 
January and February, 40 cents; in March, 30 cents; and during April, May, 
and June, 25 cents. 

That is what they are worth. How much do you pay, Mr. Warren? 

Mr. Warren. On the Columbia River, for bluebacks, where the 
man furnishes his own gear, 4 cents a pound. The Alaska rate on 
similar grade is approximately the same when 3^011 take into con- 
sideration the cost of outfitting. 



298 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. What is the average weight? 

Mr. Warren. They run 12 to 14 to the case. 

Mr. Wickersham. How much will a king weigh? 

Mr. Warren. Probably 20 pounds. 

Mr. Bower. I think the average round weight is 20 to 22 pounds. 

The Chairman. The dressed weight? 

Mr. Bower. The average round weight. They dress away about 
35 per cent. 

Mr. Wickersham. If you pass this bill, it would not hurt the peo- 
ple or the Territory more than it will your own constituents, because 
the people who consume the fish will have to pay, not the people of 
Alaska. 

The Chairman. Anyone who eats the fish would have it to pay ? 

Mr. Wickersham. They are going to soak you anyway; there is 
no help f pr you if you legalize their monopoly. 

The Chairman. It is just a question of who shall rob us, the people 
of Alaska or the Fish Trust. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Fish Trust will rob you, not the people of 
Alaska. We have no control. 

The Chairman. I want protection against both of them. 

Mr. Hardy. The initiative bill has its own knife put into its heart 
in the taxing feature. 

Mr. Wickersham. Suppose, if this bill passes that the fisheries 
pass into the control absolutely of the trust 

The Chairman (interposing). They should not punish the people. 

Mr. Byrnes. And if they control the fisheries they will then put 
the tax upon the consumer? 

Mr. Wickersham. They do it now. I have put in the evidence to 
show you that they have increased the price 100 per cent. 

Mr. Byrnes. Then they would increase it 150 per cent? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; they can do it anyway. If this bill 
passes and they get control, ownership, and monopoly of the fisheries 
they can put it up another 100 per cent and your constituents must 
pay the price. But you can prevent it now. 

The Chairman. I do not agree to that. I do not see the connec- 
tion between the premises and the conclusion. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Royal Meeker, Commissioner of the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, is a very skillful statistician ; he is in charge of 
the bureau which made the figures that I gave you, and I assume 
they are correct. 

Mr. Byrnes. The figures are all right; it is just the conclusion. 

The Chairman. The premises and the conclusion do not tie up. 

Mr. Wickersham. Of course, that is my conclusion. You gentle- 
men can draw any conclusion you please. 

I want to call your attention to another thing. We have in the 
Territory of Alaska, under the law of Congress, a rebate allowed on 
fish turned loose by those canners who maintain hatcheries. Dr. 
Smith seemed insulted when I said that the Bureau of Fisheries was 
not doing anything, because he said the Government maintained some 
hatcheries there. Neither Dr. Smith nor any member of his force 
can fairly testify, and no one has ever done it, that any of the 
hatchery fry come back after being turned loose. Yet they get 
enormous rebates on their taxes on account of supposed benefits from 
their hatcheries. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 299 

The Chairman. I do not know how to prove that the fry come 
back. 

Mr. Bowee. Circumstances show that beneficial results accrue from 
hatchery work. 

The Chairman. We have reported from this committee a number 
of bills for the construction of fish hatcheries and fish-cultural sta- 
tions; is that a waste of public money? 

Mr. Wickersham. If badly located it is a waste of public money, 
and nobody knows it better than the canners and the Bureau of 
Fisheries. 

The Chairman. Nobody can turn the fry loose and prove that they 
ever come back. 

Mr. Wickersham. But when the hatchery is situated on the stream 
at the line of brackish water and the fry when turned loose in the salt 
water die and pile up on the bank, it does not take much of a scientist 
to see that it is a failure. 

The Chairman. That can be remedied. 

Mr. Wickersham. It can, but it is not. These canners get a rebate 
on that Karluk hatchery fraud, and it is legalized in this bill. 

Mr. Byrnes. On what ? 

Mr- Wickersham. On the fry turned loose. 

The Chairman. I understand that the Bureau of Fisheries wants 
that stopped as soon as they can? 

Mr. Wickersham. They have had the power for years, and they 
have not stopped it. They have the power now. They have had the 
power for 10 years and they have had the fraud called to their atten- 
tion for six years. The United States pays 40 cents a thousand for 
the fry thus turned loose, and both the Alaska Packers' Association 
and the bureau knows it is a fraud, and yet the association gets 40 
cents a thousand for them and then asks this committee to approve 
this bill, which charges them only 50 cents a thousand for grown fish. 

The Chairman. That is the existing law? 

Mr. Wickersham. I know it is as far as the rebate law is con- 
cerned, but it ought to be repealed. 

The Chairman. Where were you when they put that over? 

Mr. Wickersham. I was. in Alaska. They have never put any 
" jobs " over since I have been here, not one. If they succeed in this 
case it will be the very first one. 

Mr. Curry. The private hatcheries in Alaska are located at the 
wrong places ? 

Mr. Wichersham. They are, most of them. 

Mr. Curry. And the fry ought not to be turned loose ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I do not think they are all in the wrong places. 
The Government hatcheries may be in proper places, though no one 
can testify that any benefits comes even from them. 

Mr. Curry. I was talking about the private hatcheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. There have been large sums of public money 
wasted on the hatchery at Karluk by reason of this fraudulent rebate, 
and everybody knows that it is a fraud. 

Mr. Curry. When that hatchery was located, perhaps salmon 
hatcheries were a new thing, an experiment, and it was located in the 
wrong place. It should have been located up the river so that the 
fry could be turned loose in fresh water about where the spawning 



300 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

beds are so as to give them a chance to develop and go down to the 
ocean. At the time when located that was not known; it is known 
now, and it should be stopped. 

Mr. Wickersham. Section 3 of this bill provides : 

That all license fees and taxes shall be payable to and collected by the Secre- 
tary of Commerce or his authorized agents, and all taxes if not paid when due 
shall become delinquent, and shall draw interest at the rate of 1 per cent 
per month until paid. And it shall be the duty of all United States district 
attorneys to enforce the payment of all delinquent taxes in their respective 
districts, and all property belonging to the delinquents shall be subject to 
execution and attachment therefor. 

That is the law of Alaska now, except that it is paid through the 
clerk of the court and not through the Department of Commerce. 
You do not gain anything by that section of this bill. There is no 
protection to the salmon of Alaska in it. The conservation does not 
gain anything in that section. 

This bill is a bill for the conservation of salmon in Alaska, and its 
result, if it is passed, will be to create a monopoly and make exces- 
sive charges against the Government, though it will not be any aid to 
conservation. 

The fourth section provides for the disposition of license fees and 
taxes, and there is some little change in the present law ; it provides : 

That all the license fees and taxes derived from the fisheries of Alaska shall 
be covered into the Treasury of the United States 

That is done now by the clerks of the court. 

And 50 per cent thereof shall be transferred annually to the treasurer of 
the Territory of Alaska for such purposes as the Territorial Legislature of 
Alaska may direct. The remaining 50 per cent shall be placed in a fund to 
be known as the Alaska fisheries fund, which fund is hereby created, and the 
moneys in said fund shall be held subject to appropriation from time to time 
by Congress for the construction, purchase, maintenance, and operation of fish 
hatcheries in Alaska, and for other purposes relating to the investigation, 
development, preservation, and conservation of the Alaska fisheries. 

Mr. Greene. Was it not suggested that that part should be 
stricken out? 

Mr. Hardy. No; not that one, Mr. Greene. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is nothing in that section for the protec- 
tion and conservation of fisheries, though it does aid in crippling 
Alaska. 

Mr. Greene. Fifty per cent of the money is to be transferred an- 
nually to the treasurer of the Territory of Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. At present all that money and all the money 
we pay in under the laws passed by Congress levying taxes on busi- 
ness interests in Alaska go into the Alaska fund, which is paid into 
the United States Treasury, and 65 per cent of it is expended by the 
Government of the United States in building military roads in 
Alaska, 25 per cent of it is expended by the Government through the 
Department of the Interior in maintaining public schools outside of 
incorporated towns in Alaska, and 10 per cent of it is expended 
through the judges of the court in the Department of Justice in 
charity in Alaska. None of it is expended by Alaska or her legisla- 
ture. 

Mr. Curry. Would this pay as much into the Alaska fund as is 
received now? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 301 

Mr. WicSERSHAM. I think not. The gentlemen on the ether side 
say it will, but I think not, because I think they are miscalculating 

entirely the expense for the collection of this fund. Another thing, 
if this bill passes and all fisheries go into the hands of the trust, as I 
am satisfied they will, then these small fees will not be paid, because 
there will not be any independent Alaska fishermen there to pay 
them; the fishing will all be done by traps, which will have the 
exclusive privilege and right of fishing. 

Mr. Hardy. Let me understand you right there. If one of these 
big companies hires a lot of employees to go out with its own fish 
nets and things of that kind, they do not pay a license for each one? 

Mr. Wk'kersham. No. 

Mr. Hardy. But if an individual or a citizen engages in catching 
fish with a trap, he does pay? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; if the individual engages in catching fish 
with a trap or a corporation does, they both pay the same per- 
centage on the fish caught. 

Mr. Hardy. So whether it is an individual or a corporation, the 
tax is the same? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; so far as the trap is concerned. But the 
point I am making is that the individual will not longer fish with 
nets, because he would be driven out of business. 

Mr. Hardy. They will simply become employees of the large com- 
panies? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and it will be of very great harm, I think, 
to the development of the Territory of Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. Is there anything to limit the number of traps that 
may be used now? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; there is no law on the subject at all. The 
trap men are squatters, I tell you, on the public lands. 

Mr. Curry. These small men, the individuals, have not been driven 
out? 

Mr. Wickersham. The small canneries are being bought up pretty 
fast. 

Mr. Hardy. As I understand you, the difference is simply this: 
Now 7 , they have a right to go there but have nothing to fix and make 
permanent their right? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is correct. 

Mr. Hardy. Whereas this bill will give them a permanent status 
which can not be interfered with later by anybody else. Now, it is 
pull Dick, pull Devil, and anybody can go in there and wrestle for 
possession. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; as a matter of fact, those who get into 
possession usually go there with their pile drivers and take possession 
of the public fishery for the summer fishing. 

Mr. Hardy. Then there is another distinction. Now, the Govern- 
ment can take hold at any time and change the status or pass such 
laws as it sees proper ; but you think if this bill is passed, the Govern- 
ment will then fix the property rights of the parties, and then in good 
faith can not change them. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think that is the law and I think the courts 
will so hold if this bill is passed. 

Mr. Hardy. In other words, they will have a vested right. 



302 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; they will have a vested right. 

Mr. Warren. Then what do you think the effect would be if they 
have the same law that they have in Washington? Could they be 
dispossessed of their right? 

Mr. Wickersham. I am not sure but what as to those people who 
have gone in under that right the State will have to purchase their 
property if it desires to get back its fisheries. The State can not take 
their property without due compensation, certainly, if they have a 
legal vested property right such as this bill gives the trap owners 
in Alaska. 

Mr. Hardy. In other words, you think if these corporations do 
combine and practically preempt the best fishing situations, it will 
be a case of letting them do as the}' please or else condemning the 
lands under the law and paying them. 

Mr. Wickersham. Under the law of eminent domain ; yes. 

Mr. Byrnes. To what extent would they have to operate those fish- 
ing nets? Having preempted the right to them, would it be neces- 
sary to operate them? 

Mr. Wickersham. They must operate at least once in three years. 

Mr. Byrnes. To what extent would that operation be required ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Of course, that is very indefinite in the bill. 
Most any attempt at slight operation might be held to be sufficient 
to hold their titles. 

Mr. Byrnes. If they preempt the right to all of them and use only 
a part, and the supply was diminished, what would be the result? 

Mr. Wickersham. They could do that, Mr. Byrnes ; they could use 
No. 1 trap site this year, No. 2 trap site the next 3'ear, and No. 3 
trap site the third year, going back to No. 1 trap site the fourth year. 
They could go the rounds and hold four traps in that way, only work- 
ing each trap each fourth year. And, Mr. Chairman, those traps 
are built each year. They are not permanent buildings. They are 
a row of piles set out into the bay with webbing spread on them and 
are taken out each fall. 

Mr. Hardy. The piles are permanent but the webbing is not. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; the piles are put in new each year, also. 

Mr. Curry. How much does it cost to establish one of those trap 
sites ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It costs the amount necessary to take a pile 
driver to the trap site and drive the piles, upon which the net is 
stretched. 

Mr. Curry. And the cost of the piles. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Curry. Do you know about how much that is ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Jones. Ten or fifteen thousand dollars ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I should think that was a very liberal estimate. 

Mr. Bower. Mr. Chairman, there is one thought in connection with 
this question which I think is being overlooked. Judge Wickersham 
is leaving the impression that all the fish are caught in pound nets 
or traps. Now, that is not the situation at all. In Alaska in 1914, 
of the entire catch 27 per cent were taken by seines, 31 per cent by 
traps, and 41 per cent in gill nets. Therefore you may see that of 
the total number of salmon caught less than one-third were taken by 
pound nets; I think that is a vital point for your consideration. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 303 

Mr. Wickersham. I think that is very interesting, but when these 
people get hold of these trap sites there will be no fishing on those 
trap sites by seines or otherwise than by traps, because they will 
have the exclusive right to the fishing there, and they will invariably 
use the traps on trapping grounds. 

The Chairman. Do other people fish now where the fish traps are 
located? 

Mr. Wickersham. They fish near them. 

The Chairman. With what kind of appliance? 

Mr. Wickersham. These gentlemen say with gill nets and seines. 

Mr. Bower. Most of the fish caught by seines are taken near the 
mouth of the streams at the present time, and in the case of the gill 
nets the fishing is far removed from any pound-net location. I think 
it is clearly established that fish do not follow along well-defined 
lanes, as has been laid down here before this committee. They are 
caught way offshore in many instances, and you must remember the 
channels in Alaska are wide. It is not as though they were fishing 
in a narrow region like the Potomac River, because in Alaska most 
of the channels are 4 or 5 or many more miles in width, and the 
fish have ample opportunity to pass by; but when they get to the 
mouth of the stream, where they congregate and school and play 
around before ascending for spawning purposes, it is then that the 
seiners gather them up. These are fish that have passed the pound- 
net sites. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; take the Icy Strait, for instance; there is 
no stream there, and they go right along the shore, and the piling 
looks like a forest of stumps standing in the water. 

Mr. Bower. In the course of 50 miles in that section there are 
probably 50 traps, which would be an average of 1 trap a mile. I 
estimate it at that, so far as the Icy Strait section is concerned, and 
that is one of the principal pound-net regions in Alaska. 

I also want to call your attention to the fact that we regard salmon 
caught in pound nets as far superior in quality to those taken in 
purse seines. Evidence can be submitted which proves conclusively 
the fact that when salmon are caught by the purse seiner they are 
very often in a stale condition when they arrive at the cannery, 
simply for the reason that the seiner goes out with a net and is away 
from the cannery several days, and fishes a little each day and puts 
the fish in the bottom of his boat, and by the time he gets back to the 
cannery some of the fish are stale. If they are caught in pound nets 
they are taken from the water only a few hours before the cannery 
is ready to use them. Therefore it seems to me obvious that fish 
caught in pound nets are in better condition than those taken in 
seines. The department has been advocating this for years. 

The Chairman. I think Dr. Jones has something to say about that 
in his report, if I recall. 

Mr. Bower. Yes; he covers that matter very comprehensively in 
his report. 

Mr. Byrnes. That sounds very reasonable. 

Mr. Warren. In further explanation of this proposition, I would 
like to state that the development of any particular form of fishing 
like a trap or seine or gill net is determined very largely by the 
nature of the country in which you are operating, and the very fact 



304 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

that a trap can be used generally by the provisions of this bill does 
not mean it can be used in all localities. I will cite, for instance, 
the western Alaska district, Bristol Bay, which is not a trapping 
district, and which can not be trapped successfully, and never has 
been. At the present time, or in 1914, according to the report of 
the Government, there were only 13 traps in western Alaska ; nearly 
all of the fish are caught in gill nets. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, I know the committee is get- 
ting impatient about this matter, and I regret that it is so, for I 
think the committee ought to listen to this matter until it under- 
stands it. 

The Chairman. We are listening very patiently. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yet I feel as though I am taking up a good 
deal of your time, though I have hurried and not mentioned very 
much of the evidence which ought to be presented. 

The Chairman. I hope you will not quit until you get to the 
remedy and finish with your statement. 

Mr. Greene. You have not given us a remedy yet. 

The Chairman. It is now 12.30, and we will take a recess until 
2 o'clock, and then you can take up the remedy feature of your argu- 
ment when we get back. 

AFTER RECESS. 

Mr. Curry. Mr. Chairman, I believe there is an evil connected 
with the halibut fisheries in Alaska that ought to be corrected if it 
can be corrected, and maybe the judge can give us some information 
along that line. I understand most of the halibut fisheries are 
located outside of the 3-mile limit, and that at least two-thirds of 
the halibut taken off the coast of Alaska are taken in Canadian 
waters and cured in Canada and shipped through Canda, and that 
even a great many of the American fishermen take their halibut 
down to Canada. Do you know whether that is true or not, Judge? 

Mr. Wickersham. The halibut trade is very rapidly going to 
Prince Rupert, British Columbia, though, of course, it all comes 
through the Canadian territory to the United States. I think it 
goes there very largely for the reason that that is the short route 
from those Alaskan waters to the market in the United States; but 
the effect of it is to put the halibut trade very largely through a 
foreign territory, and very much of it is put in cold storage at 
Prince Rupert by the Canadians. 

Mr. Curry. A lot of it is cured there. 

Mr. Wickersham. But, of course, this Fish Trust is going there 
as fast as it can. They are building their storage plants there and 
taking charge of the fish trade over on that side as well as on our 
side. 

Mr. Curry. The fish are caught in Alaskan waters, off the coast 
of Alaska, outside of the 3-mile limit? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; the halibut are, very largely, though some 
are caught d& Canadian territory. 

Mr. Curry. Is there any way of stopping that ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. I have introduced a bill for some sort of 
joint agreement between the United States and Canada, Russia and 
Japan, for the conservation of all these marine animals in the North 



ALASKA FISHEBIES. 305 

Pacific and Bering Sea and Arctic waters. I d<> not know of any 
other way yon can do it. They have the right to go off the Simile 
limit and catcli fish though it may be opposite Alaskan shores. The 
Albatross goes tip there and Locates the fishery banks and the 
Canadians go immediately and catch the fish. There is one thing 
which inighl be done, and that is, the Albatross might be left at 
home until we get the matter settled, because just as fast as it locates 
the halibut banks the Canadians take the fish. 

Mi-. Ctjkry. They claim the same right to the fish up there as we 
claim to the fish off of Newfoundland? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes: and have the same right, probably. 

Mr. Hardy. In fact, outside of the 3-mile limit anybody has that 
right ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; there is no doubt about that, and there is 
no limitation or control, and the result is that this greed for catch- 
ing everything at once and getting all the dividends in one year is 
destroying them. 

Mr. Hardy. In other words, it is '"human nature" which is uni- 
versal ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. Mr. Chairman, you asked me for a 
copy of the Territorial treasurer's report, which I have here, and 
which I now hand to you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Strong came to me shortly after the be- 
ginning of the session and we took the matter up with the Depart- 
ment of Commerce to know what could be done to retain that busi- 
ness at Ketchikan, isn't it? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

The Chairman (continuing). Instead of having this business go 
to Prince Rupert. We took it up with the Department of Com- 
merce, and I think perhaps also the Treasury Department, and as a 
result a bill was prepared which was introduced by Mr. McGilli- 
cuddy, of Maine, to regulate the importation into the United States 
of halibut or salmon taken in the North Pacific Ocean or its tribu- 
tary waters, which was intended to conserve that industry and keep 
it in Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. I believe the Booth Fisheries people are taking most of 
their fish into the Canadian waters now. They catch them off the 
coast. 

Mr. Wickersham. The New England Fisheries Co. is doing the 
same thing. 

The Chairman. That bill is now pending before the Committee 
on Ways and Means. 

Mr. Hardy. Do you know what the remedy they propose is ? 

The Chairman. The bill is very short, and I will read it: 

A BILL To regulate the importation into the United States of halibut or salmon taken in 
the north Pacific Ocean or its tributary waters. 

Be it enacted by flic Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
stat< .s- of America in Congress assembled', That from and after ninety days after 
the passage of this act no fresh or frozen halibut or salmon from the north 
Pacific Ocean or its tributary waters shall be admitted into the United States 
through any foreign country except when the same shall be in bond from an 
American port. 

Mr. Hardy. I confess I do not care much on which shore they 
catch the fish. I would like to see the supply perpetuated, but I am 



306 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

not much interested in whether it is Canadian canneries or American 
canneries; I do not want to see the destruction of that supply of 
food. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, the committee wanted to know 
what the remedy is to prevent either the loss of the fisheries of 
Alaska or their monopolization by the fish trust. I admit my in- 
competency in that matter. Nobody has yet been able to discover a 
satisfactory method for curbing the trust nor for curbing what Judge 
Hardy has just called " human greed." The best we can do is to so 
control the situation that the fisheries will not be entirely destroyed, 
as they have been in all the rest of the American waters, almost. Up 
to this time we have failed, as a nation, to save our fisheries. They 
ought to be saved, because there is nothing that will take their place. 
There is now a great effort being made to save wild animals of cer- 
tain kinds. I do not care whether the buffalo is saved or not. I 
have never grieved over the buffalo being slaughtered and killed off, 
because a great big Hereford steer is a much better animal than a 
buffalo, and you can not raise them both in the same region, and I 
think it better for the country to tame it and reduce it to subjection 
and plant in the place of the wild animals the domesticated kind. 
But with regard to the fisheries, the situation is different. I have 
never yet known hatcheries or any other scheme to do for the fisheries 
what nature has done. I hope I may be mistaken about that. I 
hope the hatcheries will do more good than they have demonstrated 
up to this time, and, in the hope they will do it, I am in favor of 
giving them every opportunity to try it; but the hatcheries do not 
interfere with the control, for instance, of the fisheries by the people 
of the State or the Territory. Hatcheries are now being introduced 
throughout the various States by Congress, notwithstanding the con- 
trol of the fisheries by the State. I think the control by the Terri- 
tory would not prevent the establishment of hatcheries in Alaska if 
the fisheries there can be kept up in that way, though the Territory 
had control of the fisheries. 

Now, you want to know what my remedy is. I have introduced 
several bills proposing a remedy, and I have tried to have them heard. 
There has been a great deal of antagonism between the Delegate 
from Alaska and the Bureau of Fisheries on the matter. It has never 
been of a serious, personal nature, but it has been very vigorous at 
times in its language; and the gentlemen who represent the Bureau 
of Fisheries, if they ever resent my opposition and say something in 
criticism, seem to forget it very quickly, and I try to do the same 
thing, because I give them credit for trying to do what I think I am 
entitled to credit for, trying to preserve the fisheries of Alaska from 
destruction. We do not agree about how it shall be done, and they 
have presented a bill here which is their remedy and I have presented 
others. I am going to present one now to the committee, H. R. 
6887, introduced by me in the Sixty-fourth Congress, first session, on 
January 4, 1916. This is only one of several bills along the same 
line. This bill, however, is a bill to establish the full Territorial 
form of government in Alaska, and for other purposes. 

Mr. Greene. That bill was referred to the Committee on Terri- 
tories ? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 307 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. Section 1 provides : 

That there be, and is hereby, created and established the Cull Territorial form 
of government in Alaska, and the legislature of said Territory is hereby author- 
ized ami empowered to haw and exercise the full powers of Territorial legisla- 
tion heretofore given to and exercised by the Territorial legislatures of other 
Territories of the United States. 

That being, of course, a general clause, is followed by certain 
specific sections giving to the Territory of Alaska certain specific 
powers which it does not now have. The bill repeals a great many of 
the limitations which are imposed upon the Territorial Legislature of 
Alaska and attempts to replace those limitations with power to act, 
and among the sections is section 9, which relates to the matter now 
before this committee, and I will read it : 

Sec. 9. That in addition to the powers now authorized to be exercised by 
the Legislature of Alaska, its legislative power shall extend to and over all the 
fish and fisheries of Alaska and all wild animals and birds therein, and the 
legislature shall pass laws for the conservation, protection, and regulation 
thereof, and may levy and collect for Territorial use a license tax on trades 
and business, including the fish and fisheries, and may control the domestication 
of all wild animals and birds and provide for the erection of fish hatcheries 
and stocking barren streams and lakes with fish. 

Now t , my judgment is, and in it the governor agrees, that the 
Territory of Alaska through its legislative body is much better 
fitted by reason of its intimate acquaintance and its great interest in 
the fisheries, much better calculated to preserve and protect those 
fisheries from destruction than Congress. I have stood before Con- 
gress after Congress for nearly eight years trying to get some legis- 
lation for that purpose. The Bureau of Fisheries has been in opposi- 
tion for eight years and we are here now struggling over the same 
thing we have been struggling over for eight years — and Congress 
has done nothing. Therefore I say again that the Legislature of 
Alaska is much better fitted to do the work of caring for Alaska 
fisheries than Congress and will do it much better; and my judgment 
is that the remedy, the real remedy, is to turn the fisheries of 
Alaska over to the Territorial Legislature of Alaska and let them 
care for them. Now, that can be done, if Congress should take that 
view of it, by reserving to the Bureau of Fisheries the right of in- 
spection, the right of maintaining its hatcheries, the right of scientific 
research, and all that kind of thing, and imposing all other duties 
on Alaska, and the two would work in harmony without the slightest 
difficulty, just as they can do in the States. They do not have any 
trouble in the States. The State legislature has control over its 
fisheries. They do in California and in the other States, and the 
Bureau of Fisheries works with them, on scientific research, and there 
is no difficulty between them, and it has always been my judgment 
and is now, and I offer it as the first of several suggestions of reme- 
dies as the first and best remedy. 

Mr. Curry. I believe in local home rule and would be glad to turn 
this matter over to the Territory of Alaska if I were sure that the 
Territory of Alaska could take care of it, but that Territory is one- 
fifth the size of the United States and only has a population of about 
60,000 people including Indians and Eskimos. If it can be shown 
that the Territory can take care of the situation and relieve the 
United States Government of the responsibility and expenditure of 



308 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

an immense sum of money, I would be in favor of turning the mat- 
ter over to them. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Territory of Alaska has to-day a white 
population of 60,000, and that population is increasing rapidly. 
Twenty-five thousand white people are coming to Alaska this year. 
The white population is increasing very rapidly and, so far as I 
have been able to ascertain, the acts passed by the Territorial legis- 
lature compare favorably with the acts of other Territorial legisla- 
tures. The governor is a good executive, and has only the best in- 
terest of the public at heart ; the Federal officers are appointed by the 
President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. They 
are just as good men as any of the Territories have and as compe- 
tent and honest as those in the Bureau of Fisheries. They are equal 
to those they had in the Territory of Washington where I lived for 
many years when it was a Territory. They could look after the fish- 
eries of Alaska with a reasonable certainty that the public interests 
would be well cared for. 

Mr. Curry. But they did not enact any such laws in the Territory 
of Washington as these would be. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is true. They did not have laws of this 
kind, because no such effort was made to monopolize the fisheries as 
is now being made in Alaska, but I think the 24 men who comprise 
the Territorial Legislature of Alaska would pass more satisfactory 
laws for the conservation of the Alaska fisheries than Congress has. 

Mr. Curry. The Anglo-Saxon people can, of course, enact good laws, 
but that is not the question. The question is, Are the people there 
in a position to administer them? 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no doubt but what they are. There 
is no doubt but the Territorial legislature would provide for reason- 
able and proper inspection, and for the conservation of these fisheries 
and for their protection from monopoly. They are on the ground ; 
they would not have to view the work 5,000 miles away, such as does 
the bureau in Washington which has control of them. I am very 
much opposed to this bureaucratic control in Washington, because 
I think it will have the same effect upon the salmon fisheries that it 
had upon the fur-seal fisheries, which resulted in their destruction. 

Mr. CuRRr. It costs a good deal of money to put the fisheries into 
practical operation and to run them, and the fishermen must be taken 
up there -every season. Those men can not live in Alaska, and they 
are operating the fisheries only during a short period of time each 
year. These men would be employed in the fisheries for possibly not 
more than three months in the year, and there is nothing for them 
to do outside of that. 

Mr. Wickersham. There are other fisheries that would employ 
them during the balance of the year. There is a great variety of 
fisheries up there. Besides, they do mining and other kinds of work, 
and help to build up the country. Southeastern Alaska is well peo- 
pled, and furnishes a great many men for the fisheries, as all these 
gentlemen tell us. 

Mr. Curry. As a rule, farmers and miners in any country that I 
have been acquainted with do not engage in fishing for a living, and 
fishermen do not engage in farming and mining. 

Mr. Wickersham. When I introduced this bill, it was forwarded 
by the chairman of the Committee on Territories to the Secretary of 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 309 

Commerce for a report. The Secretary did not respond, but Dr. 
H. M. Smith, the Commissioner of Fisheries, did respond in objection 
to it. I do not care to read his letter, hut I would like to have it go 
into the record. It is dated January 12, 1916, and is addressed to 
Mr. Thurman, the Solicitor of the Department of Commerce, who 
placed it in the record before the Committee on Territories. I think 
it ought to go before this committee also. 

Mr. Handy. Briefly, what is that objection? 

Mr. WickersHAM. Briefly, the objection is what has been stated 
here — that is, that there are not enough people up there to care for 
the fisheries, and that scientists and office men in Washington can 
handle them better than the people of Alaska. I disagree with them 
about that, but I offer to put that letter in the record because it is in 
opposition to what I have suggested. 

(The letter referred to is as follows:) 

Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Fisheries. 
Washington, January 12, 1916. 
Mr. A. L. Thurman, 

Solicitor Department of Commerce. 

Dear Mr. Thurman : In compliance with the request made in your commu- 
nication of the 7th instant, transmitting a copy of H. R. 6887, providing for a 
Territorial form of government for Alaska, embraced in the following, will be 
found the views of the bureau as to why it will be unwise to allow the control 
of the fisheries to pass from the Federal Government to the Territorial gov- 
ernment of Alaska. Certain comments will also be made in respect to the 
advisability of the Federal Government retaining control over the fur-bearing 
animals, although under present plans such control will pass from the Depart- 
ment of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture. The bill referred to 
exempts specifically from Territorial action the fur-seal laws at present appli- 
cable, therefore no necessity arises for setting forth reasons in respect to this 
phase of the department's activities and interests in Alaska. 

The international aspects of the situation afford, it is firmly believed, excel- 
lent grounds upon which to base the retention of control in the Federal Gov- 
ernment over the fisheries of Alaska as against the investment of such control 
in a Territorial legislative body. In the southeast section Alaska borders British 
Columbia, with its salmon canneries and other fisheries of great extent, while 
In the far north and west the shores of Alaska approach within a compara- 
tively short distance of Siberia, and to the south the Aleutian Islands reach into 
the Eastern Hemisphere to an extent that makes them comparatively easy of 
appi'oach from Japan. The development of the fisheries in these more remote 
regions is perhaps not at present of serious moment, but in southeast Alaska 
problems are arising with respect to our relations with the Canadian Gov- 
ernment which seem to admit of handling or adjustment only through the agency 
of the Federal Government as exercised by its executive departments. The 
salmon fisheries of southeast Alaska immediately border upon those of British 
Columbia, while the halibut fishery is being pursued actively in the waters of 
Alaska and British Columbia and likewise upon the high seas off British Co- 
lumbia and Alaska. A serious problem has but recently arisen through the open- 
ing of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to Prince Rupert, British Columbia. 
This has caused friction and has given rise to complications which could not 
possibly be handled with propriety by a local or Territorial jurisdiction or admin- 
istration. The international character of this situation has necessitated its 
being handled by the Treasury Department and the Department of Commerce 
in an effort to bring about a proper adjustment. 

It would seem that the framers of the bill proposing Territorial authority 
over the fisheries of Alaska have recognized the international questions involved 
in the administration of the fur-seal industry, as an explicit exemption with 
respect to this matter has been made in the bill. There are very similar points 
along this same line involved in the treatment of the offshore fisheries of Alaska, 
including the salmon, halibut, cod, and herring fisheries. Whaling operations 
also are to be considered in this connection. 

46232— pt ")— 16 4 



310 ALASKA FISHERIES.' 

If the proposed bill should become a law all fish hatcheries and fish-cultural 
operations would be handled by the Territory. This is not regarded as proper 
any more than in the various States where the Federal Government conducts and 
operates fish hatcheries. It is true that in the latter case the States themselves 
in some instances operate hatcheries also. The Bureau of Fisheries has the ex- 
perience, the machinery, the equipment, and the men to conduct fish-cultural op- 
erations in a manner calculated to produce the best results. Any undertaking 
along this line by the Territorial government would be more or less experi- 
mental for some time to come and would undoubtedly mean a serious setback in 
this important field which has so much to do with the conservation and preser- 
vation of the fisheries industry. It is fully believed that the private hatcheries 
now in Alaska should be taken over by the Government. Provision to this end 
has been made in the draft of the fisheries bill which it is expected will be sub- 
mitted to Congress very soon. 

The taking over of the control of the fisheries of Alaska by the Territory 
would undoubtedly mean the appointment of local men to enforce the law and 
administer all of the duties pertaining to the industry. It has been thought by 
some that the appointment of men who are more or less identified and linked with 
local interests is not as conducive to an impartial handling of the situation as 
is the case when men are brought in from the outside. 

The time will undoubtedly come when Alaska may be able to administer 
properly at least certain phases of her fisheries problems, but from present indi- 
cations that day is quite far distant. Alaska has an extent of approximately 
540,000 square miles and a .population of about 35,000 whites. This is about 
1 person to every 15 square miles. The Territory still partakes of many of the 
characteristics of the frontier, for although there are citizens of great ability 
and high integrity, it may be said that they are so in the minority that a re- 
sponsible citizenry scarcely exists and that they have no effective voice in the 
management of civic affairs. The people come and go in their search for for- 
tune in Alaska, and this itinerant characteristic, which will probably continue 
for a long time, is not calculated to develop rapidly or increase except slowly 
the comparatively small number of citizens which make the backbone of the 
Commonwealth. Such a situation as this affords great opportunity for pro- 
fessional agitators and other disturbing elements to create strife and friction 
between the various diverse local interests. The latter feature is unusuaily 
important in Alaska for the reason of the vast extent of the coast line. The in- 
terests of the fishermen and the needs of the fishery in southeast Alaska are 
quite different from those of central Alaska, 700 or 800 miles away ; and both 
in turn are radically different from the necessities of western Alaska, a thou- 
sand miles or more to the westward. The people of Alaska themselves recog- 
nize the diversity of these interests because there has been considerable talk 
within the last two or three years that Alaska ought to be divided into two or 
three States or districts entirely separate and apart so far as the administration 
of the local government is concerned. Members of the first Territorial legis- 
lature expressed themselves, orally at least, that Alaska should be divided into 
a southeast Alaska, comprising the " Panhandle " section, so called ; western 
Alaska, embracing the coastal region of central and western Alaska ; and 
interior Alaska, the latter to include all the great interior plain and northern 
portions of the Territory. When such men, who are the best and most repre- 
sentative of Alaska's citizenry, openly declare themselves along this line, it 
seems apparent to the impartial observer that Alaska herself recognizes the 
futility of harmonious action under the present state of affairs. Until such 
conditions improve, it is scarcely to be thought that the fisheries of the Terri- 
tory will receive better attention or will be improved in any way by trans- 
ferring their control from the Federal Government to the Territorial govern- 
ment. 

In an article in the June, 1915, number of the North American Review, 
Secretary Lane, of the Department of the Interior, in advocating a development 
board for Alaska, said that there were good reasons why the control of the seal 
industry, the salmon hatcheries, and the sea fisheries should be left in the hands 
of the Department of Commerce. Although he did not expressly say so, it 
was implied by Secretary Lane that beginning at the shore line the control of 
the fisheries should be in the development board. This is suceptible of criti- 
cism on the ground that any such plan would mean a division of authority. It 
is obviously improper to think of having the fisheries outside the shore line 
administered by the Federal Government, and any fisheries inside the shore 
line, presumably meaning in the streams, handled by a development board or 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 311 

another department. In this connection it may be mentioned that the cod and 
halibut fisheries are conducted both close to the shores of Alaska and many 
miles offshore in some instances. Whaling operations so far as the actual 
killing and capture of the whales is concerned is carried on usually several 
miles offshore, while the plants to which the whales are taken for conversion 
into oil and other products are necessarily located on shore except in the occa- 
sional instances of floating plants, and even in the event of floating plants they 
are anchored as a rule in protected harbors and bays. It would be utterly 
impossible to think of dividing any jurisdiction or control over such industries. 
Steps are now under way to transfer jurisdiction over the terrestrial fur- 
bearing animals of Alaska from the Department of Commerce to the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. It seems not inappropriate, however, for the bureau to 
herein state that any move tending to place the control over fur-bearing animals 
in the legislative body of Alaska will be productive of anything but beneficial 
results. Such a move would be unwise and unprogressive. The protection and 
conservation of the land fur-bearing animals of Alaska involves work of a 
highly technical character if done properly. And it can be accomplished suc- 
cessfully olny by those who have had long experience in that line of work. 
The Bureau of Biological Survey of the Department of Agriculture is peculiarly 
well fitted and adapted in view of its long experience to pursue this work 
successfully. Any effort along this line upon the part of the Territory of 
Alaska would be experimental and crude for a long time to come by comparison 
with the intelligent and progressive efforts of the Biological Survey with 
its trained and experienced personnel. The Biological Survey is conducting 
similar work in various parts of the country, and any progress or advance that 
may come about in their methods elsewhere would, if appropriate, be applied 
promptly to Alaska. The benefits of such progress would scarcely reach Alaska 
if the Territory were administering its own laws pertaining to fur-bearing 
animals, at least such benefits in all likelihood would not become operative 
without long delay. The problem is national and international rather than 
local or territorial. This is demonstrated clearly and emphatically in the fact 
that no State has ever been able to handle the conservation of its fur-bearing 
animals in a satisfactory manner because it has been almost impossible to 
approach the problem except from a purely local standpoint and under a policy 
more or less vacillating and influenced by local political exigencies. 
Very truly, yours, 

H. M. Smith, Commissioner. 

Mr. Hardy. Section 9 of your bill, you said, embodies your ideas 
on this particular question? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. I read section 9 to you. Section 9 
substantially gives the Territorial legislature jurisdiction to pass laws 
for the protection and conservation of the fisheries of Alaska. They 
are now debarred from doing so by a special act of Congress — that is 
to say, when the act of August 24, 1912, was passed by Congress to my 
amazement I found that the word " fish " had been inserted in that 
act, and that barred the legislature from any control over the fisheries. 

Now, I heard Mr. John Sidney Webb, the Washington representa- 
tive of the Booth Fisheries Co., say before the Committee on the Ter- 
ritories that he procured that to be done, and I have no reason to doubt 
his word. 

Mr. Goodwix. Is it your idea to give the Territory of Alaska, 
through its legislature, jurisdiction over the fisheries to the exclusion 
of any governmental regulation or control by the United States? 

Mr. Wickersham. It could not be done to the exclusion of Congress. 

Mr. Goodwix. It would be contrary to the organic act. 

Mr. Wickersham. No, sir; the power that Congress would give 
the Territorial legislature w T ould be an amendment to the organic act. 
Congress, of course, reserves the right to disapprove at any time 
any act of the Territorial legislature, and Congress could, of course, 
at any time disapprove any act of the legislature or even abolish the 



312 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Territorial Legislature of Alaska. That legislature is a creature 
of Congress, and, of course, can be abolished by Congress, and its 
laws are always subject to repeal or change by Congress. 

Mr. Curry. If your bill was enacted into law, it certainly would 
prohibit the United States Government from exercising any more 
control over the fisheries of Alaska than it has over the fisheries of 
California or Oregon. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; that is not the law and never was in any 
Territory. 

Mr. Curry. This bill would terminate the authority of the National 
Government over the fisheries of Alaska unless the bill was repealed 
or amended. It would absolutely place the control of the fisheries in 
the hands of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska to the exclusion of 
the National Government. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; not to the exclusion of the National Govern- 
ment. 

Mr. Curry. Of course they could have hatcheries and could exam- 
ine the fisheries for scientific purposes, but they would have no right 
to promulgate rules and regulations governing fishing. 

Mr. Wickersham. But it would not bar Congress from repealing 
that act at any time or enacting laws to cover the subject, thereby 
replacing the acts of the Territorial legislature. 

Mr. Curry. But this bill would certainly place that power in the 
Territorial legislature to the' exclusion of the United States. 

Mr. Wickersham. My purpose in offering it was to induce Con- 
gress to give the Territorial Legislature of Alaska complete jurisdic- 
tion to legislate for the fisheries in Alaska. That is the purpose of it, 
but subject at all times to the plenary power of Congress to repeal 
or change the Territorial laws. 

Mr. Hardy. It would be to the exclusion of Congress, except in 
so far as Congress might, by the disapproval of any of the acts of 
the Territorial legislature, assert its own authority. 

Mr. Wickersham. Or by passing subsequent laws. 

Mr. Hardy. I have been trying to understand what is to be done 
there, but your bill does not give me any answer to that question. It 
is all up in the air still. You say turn it over to the Territorial legis- 
lature, but is there any concrete remedy that you can suggest for the 
threatened monopolization of that food supply ? Do- you have in 
mind such a remedy that you could present to this committee for the 
betterment of those conditions out there ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; there are remedies of that kind, and I am 
prepared to submit them to this committee. 

Mr. Hardy. What is the remedy? 

Mr. Wickersham. I can not tell everything at once, and I am 
coming to that as fast as I can. Now, there is another remedy that 
I want to talk about, and that remedy is statehood for Alaska. We 
have more than 60,000 White people in the Territory of Alaska to- 
clav, and we do an annual export and import business with the 
United States of nearly $100,000,000. The Territory of Alaska. has 
to-day a more permanent and larger white population than the State 
of Nevada had when it was admitted. It has a greater white popu- 
lation than several of the States had when they were created States. 
I have introduced in this Congress a bill (H. E. 13978) for the pur- 
pose of enabling the people of Alaska to form a State constitution 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 313 

and become one of the States in the American Union. That is an- 
other remedy. 

Mr. Cukry. Do you think the time has come to admit Alaska to 
statehood before it has population enough to entitle it to a Repre- 
sentative in Congress? 

Mr. Wickersham. I have introduced that bill, and I am trying to 
present the Territory as worthy of statehood because of its great 
resources and because of the necessity of preserving and protecting 
those resources. I believe that if it is made a State it will very 
rapidly do what it ought to do in the way of conserving its resources 
from destruction. 

The Chairman. Do you think that a Territory with G0,000 white 
population should be admitted to statehood and have a Member of 
Congress and two United States Senators? 

Mr. Wickersham. Montana was. 

The Chairman. Yes; and I think that was a great outrage on the 
other States of the Union. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am only answering your question by citing an 
example where it was done in recent years. 

The Chairman. Which was an example of bad legislation. 

Mr. Wickersham. That may be, and it might be bad legislation to 
do something of that kind for Alaska, but I am suggesting that as 
one of the remedies. 

Mr. Curry. Nevada, at the time she was admitted, had a popula- 
tion sufficiently large to entitle her to a Member of Congress, but 
since that time, of course, the mines have closed up and the people 
have left. 

Mr. Wickersham. We will have 200,000 people in Alaska before 
five years. 

Mr. Curry. That may be. 

The Chairman. I think you will have a permanent population of 
several hundred thousand after a while. 

Mr. Wickersham. There are two lines that may be pursued in 
protecting and conserving these fisheries: One is through the Ter- 
ritorial government and the other is through Congress. Now, as- 
suming that you are not favorable to either Territorial control or 
the erection of a State and State control, let us look to the other 
proposition of control through Congress. Now, nobocty, it seems to 
me, has offered any suggestion along the line of bureaucratic control 
than the one offered by Secretary Lane. Mr. Lane's bill was first 
introduced by Senator Chamberlain; it was S. 4318, Sixty-third 
Congress, second session. I have approved that bill by introducing 
one which is substantially like it, although somewhat amplified. 
While I would much prefer Territorial control, the Lane bill provides 
for the creation of a board in Alaska to be known as the Alaskan 
Development Board. The Chamberlain-Lane bill is short, and I 
would like to have it put into the record. It expresses Mr. Lane's 
idea for the control of all these governmental administrative func- 
tions in the Territory of Alaska. 

The Chairman. That is not Secretary Lane, is it? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; Secretary of the Interior, Franklin K. 
Lane. This bill was prepared by him and introduced by Senator 
Chamberlain in the Sixty-third Congress, and it has been approved 
by Secretary Lane time after time. 



314 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

(The bill referred to is as follows:) 

[S. 4318, Sixty-third Congress, second session.] 

A BILL To provide for the administration of national property and interests in the Terri- 
tory of Alaska, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That a board is hereby created and 
established, to be known as the Alaskan Development Board, which shall be 
composed of three persons to be appointed by the President, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, to serve for terms of seven years. The 
members of the board shall reside and maintain their principal and such 
branch offices as may be necessary within the Territory of Alaska. Not more 
than two of the board shall be appointed from the same political party and 
they shall not engage in any other business, vocation, or employment. No 
vacancy in the board shall impair the right of the remaining members to 
exercise all the powers of the board. The chairman shall receive an annual 
salary of $8,500 and the other members an annual salary of $8,000 each. 

Sec. 2. That the board hereby created shall, subject to the provisions of this 
-act and under such laws as Congress has enacted or may hereafter enact, 
have jurisdiction and control over the care, use, and disposition of all re- 
served and unreserved public lands, including forests and waters and resources 
therein, over fish and fisheries, seals, reindeer, mines, minerals, and mining, 
Indians, Eskimos, and other Alaskan natives, toll roads, and over all other 
matters or things now subject or which may be made subject to national 
ownership, care, disposition, control, or regulation within the Territorial limits 
of Alaska, except with respect to rates, regulations, and control of railroads, 
steamship lines, and other common carriers, which shall remain subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission under the act of Congress 
entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen 
hundred and eighty-seven, as emended by the act of Congress approved June 
twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six, and acts amendatory thereof and 
supplemental thereto, and to this end there is hereby conferred upon the board 
hereby created all authority, jurisdiction, rights, and powers now possessed 
and exercised in or concerning the matters herein described by any of the 
existing executive departments, commissions, bureaus, or offices. 

Sec. 3. That the board is authorized to provide itself with furnished offices 
at some accessible point in Alaska, and with such branch offices as may be 
required for the transaction of business, with such books, records, stationery, 
and appliances, and such office and field assistants, clerks, stenographers, type- 
writers, and other employees as may be necessary for the proper discharge of 
the duties imposed by this act upon such board, fixing the compensation of 
such employees within appropriations made for that purpose. 

Sec 4. That the heads of departments or of independent commissions, bureaus, 
and offices now having jurisdiction and control over the matters and things 
subject to the provisions of this act are hereby authorized and directed to 
transfer to the Alaskan development board such jurisdiction, supervision, and 
control, and the appropriations made therefor may be expended by the board 
in manner as if same were so directed in the appropriation acts, and such 
jurisdiction and control shall hereafter be within the province of the Alaskan 
development board, and shall cease and determine under the other aforesaid 
departments, commissions, bureaus, and offices ; and such experts, employees, 
property, and equipment as are now employed or used by said departments, 
commissions, bureaus, and offices in connection with the subjects herewith 
transferred to the Alaskan development board are directed to be transferred 
to said board. 

Sec. 5. That the board shall be under the general supervision of the Secre- 
tary of the Interior, who is hereby authorized to provide general rules and 
regulations, not inconsistent with law, for such supervision, including the 
examination, review, and investigation of the books, records, accounts, and acts 
of the board. Appeals will lie directly to the Secretary of the Interior from all 
final decisions or actions of the board. 

Sec. 6. That it shall be the duty of the board to submit an annual report to 
Congress, through the Secretary of the Interior, and to from time to time ad- 
vise Congress as to existing conditions with respect to matters under its super- 
vision or control, recommending such new laws or changes in existing laws as 
may be deemed advisable or necessary. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 315 

SEC. 7. That all moneys received by the heard from sales, leases, fees, or any 
other matter or source under its control shall he deposited in the Treasury of 
the United States and reserved and set aside as a special fund, to he known 
as "the Alaskan fund," to he used for the payment of the salaries of the hoard, 
its subordinate Officers and employees, and the expenses incident to the execution 
and administration of the business and duties of the hoard, the balance to 
remain subject to such future appropriation thereof as Congress may make 
for the development, improvement, and betterment of the Territory of Alaska. 

Sec. S. That nothing in this act shall he construed as in any way granting 
to the hoard, its officers or employees, any authority, control, or jurisdiction over 
the political or other internal affairs of the organized Territory of Alaska. 

Sec. 9. That this act shall take effect and he in force on and after the first 
day of July, nineteen hundred and fourteen, on which date all acts and parts 
of acts inconsistent herewith shall stand repealed. 

The Chairman. What does that bill do with the governor and the 
Territorial legislature? Does it wipe them out? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; you misunderstand the scope of the bill. 
The board created by the bill has none but administrative duties to 
perform, and it would take the place of all the bureaus in Washington 
which now attend to merely administrative matters and things in 
Alaska. It would have no legislative power nor judicial power, but 
only administrative powers. It would have only those administrative 
duties which are imposed upon the different bureaus by acts of 
Congress. 

The Chairman. Has that bill been considered by the Committee 
on the Territories? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; to some extent. 

The Chairman. What have they done with it ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Nothing. 

Mr. Curry. What Cabinet officer would that board be under? 

Mr. Wickersham. The Secretary of the Interior. 

At the last session of Congress Senator Pittman introduced Senate 
bill 5601. which is a bill to establish a commission form of govern- 
ment in the administration of national affairs in Alaska, etc. It is 
somewhat different in its phraseology from the one introduced by 
Senator Chamberlain, but it is substantially the same thing. It pro- 
vides for this board to have administrative jurisdiction over the 
fisheries of Alaska and over the other administrative functions there. 

Mr. Curry. Would not that be better than to transfer the control 
of the fisheries to the Territorial legislature ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No, sir; I would much prefer the transfer of 
control to the Territory, but you gentlemen have been asking for 
various methods for the control of the fisheries in Alaska, and I am 
suggesting those that have been proposed. 

Mr. Curry. That is not what I want. I want your idea on the 
subject. I know all about those bills that have been introduced, but 
if you have any suggestions to make as to what ought to be done, I 
would like to hear them. You are the Delegate from Alaska 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I realize that. 

Mr. Curry. And you ought to know as much about it as Senator 
Pittman, who was up there but a few months. 

Mr. Wickersham. I also introduced H. R. 15763, in the Sixty- 
third Congress, that being "A bill to establish a commission form of 
government in the administration of national affairs in Alaska, and 
for other purposes." Now, perhaps these bills do not reach the 
remedy that Judge Hardy has so persistently asked for. The pur- 



316 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

pose of these bills is simply to centralize the work of all the bureaus 
in Alaska and put them under one commission, so there will be one 
group of three or five men located in the Territory of Alaska who 
will have control over all the administrative activities in the Terri- 
tory, instead of 20 groups or bureaus situated in Washington 
City. My bill, H. R. 15763, was forwarded to Secretary Lane for 
examination and report and under date of May 19, 1914, he approved 
it in this letter : 

The Secretary of the Interior, 

Washington, May 19, 1914. 
Dear Mr. Houston : I have your letter of May 16, requesting a report on niy 
views with respect to H. R. 15763, a bill to provide for the establishment of a 
commission that will have charge of the administration of the resources of 
Alaska. This bill is drafted along the lines suggested in my last annual report, 
and in further proof of the necessity for such a measure, I beg to present to 
you an outline of the situation in Alaska as showing the interlocking and over- 
lapping of administrative functions in that territory. 
Cordially, yours, 

Franklin K. Lane. 
Hon. William C. Houston, 

Chairman Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives. 

With that letter came this copy of Secretary Lane's published 
statement on the subject of " Red tape in the government of Alaska 
and need for centralized responsibility and accountability," in which 
he says: 

Alaska's problems are largely peculiar to Alaska. Our present system of 
government there is heterologous. Instead of one government in Alaska, we 
have a number, interlocked, overlapped, cumbersome, and confusing. 

In their zealousness for the particular parts of the public welfare they 
represent, the long distance representatives of bureaus located in Washing- 
ton are apt to lose sight of the fact that they all represent the same interest 
and purpose. 

There is a government of the forests, a government of the fisheries, one of 
the reindeer and natives, another of the cables and telegraphs. There is a 
government for certain public lands and forests, another for other lands and 
forests. 

Each of these governments is intent .upon its own particular business, jealous 
of its own success and prerogatives, and all are more or less unrelated and 
independent in their operations. 

Success of the new policy depends very largely upon the administration of 
the laws in the Territory. 

Experience has demonstrated that efficient administration is best secured by 
centralizing responsibility and authority in the hands of a small number of 
men, who can be held to strict accountability for the results of their actions. 

The proposed development board for Alaska follows this modern and well- 
tested plan for securing efficient administration. 

I want to call your attention to one or two more short statements 
in this " red-tape " statement. On another page, after discussing 
different Government bureaus that have control of administration in 
Alaska, and criticizing them severely — not the personnel of the 
bureaus, but the law — because of overlapping and interlocking con- 
ditions, one bureau operating against another, and in an excessively 
expensive manner, he says : 

While this patchwork system of administrative machinery has answered well 
enough while the Government's policy has been merely to keep the door shut 
and discourage development, it will not answer under the new policy. 

If the work needed in the future were to be purely and solely administrative, 
it must still be efficient and under responsible and readily responsive super- 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 317 

vision. Alaska's remoteness alone makes anything like supervision by bureaus 
located in Washington more or less perfunctory and superficial. What we now 
have in Alaska is little more than a number of independent and unrelated 
agents, acting largely upon their own initiative, each attending only to some 
special branch of police work, and no branch adequately organized to cope with 
its own problems, without even attempting to coordinate its work with that of 
the other branches. 

On another page he says : 

From time to time new laws and new policies must be adopted by Congress 
to enable the fullest fruition of the promises of Alaska. Under present condi- 
tions we have recommendations from numerous sources for changes in the laws 
and policies. These recommendations have to do usually with only a single 
phase of the big problem of how the country may best and quickest be developed. 
Each bureau or department charged with only certain duties and responsibili- 
ties recommends changes in the laws affecting the particular function it per- 
forms. There is no place where these various changing needs of the country 
are brought together, correlated, and framed into a "consistent, workable, gen- 
oral program or policy which considers in all its aspects the needs of the whole 
country. Such a duty the proposed hoard would perform. 

Now, it is my judgment that if Mr. Lane's idea was carried out 
we would have good government in Alaska. But, as Mr. Bower says, 
the Department of Commerce has been strongly against it, because 
of the Bureau of Fisheries, and we have to-day this interlocking and 
overlapping of the numerous governments in Alaska, one fighting 
the other and operating in opposition to each other, merely because 
the Department of Commerce will not consent to Mr. Lane's propo- 
sition. 

Mr. Bower. Why do you think that the Bureau of Fisheries has 
come in conflict with other bureaus or departments in Alaska ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Lane sets that out very fully in his discus- 
sion of red tape in Alaska. 

Mr. Bower. I do not think he mentions anything about the Bureau 
of Fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; he does; he mentions the fisheries. Mr. 
Lane, of course, is willing to concede something to the Bureau of 
Fisheries notwithstanding what he said in " red tape," so as to get 
the rest of it. I think the Bureau of Fisheries is not adapted to run 
civil government in Alaska, or to run a taxation bureau, and to con- 
trol the great interests which these fisheries represent. They ought 
not to be permitted to do it. Certainly if I had a plant worth four 
or five hundred million dollars, the output of which was $20,000,000 
per annum, I would not employ the gentlemen in the Bureau of 
Fisheries, as much as I think of them^ to run that plant. I would 
get a hard-headed old business man who knows the fisheries busi- 
ness — a man the Fish Trust could not deceive as the} 7 have these offi- 
cials. I say that because I think these gentlemen are honest and do 
not think they are misled, but they are just the same. 

The Chairman. How can they help it. if they have gone in there 
and located those trap sites? If they have already got them lo- 
cated they would have to have power to oust them, and they would 
have to have legislation. It is not a matter of men alone, but it must 
be a matter of laws as well as of men. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; and if they get this bill through they will 
have a law legalizing the monopoly. 

Now, there is another remedy in matters of this kind, and it is a 
remedy very much favored by a great many good people, and that 



318 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

is the leasing method. You have passed such laws; all of you have 
voted for them 

Mr. Curry (interposing). I have not. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then, I beg your pardon. Congress passed a 
bill for leasing coal lands in Alaska, and Congress placed around 
the leasing of those lands the most stringent regulations. That 
method is strongly favored by some of the very best men in the 
Union to-day — there is no question about that. I do not agree with 
it, probably because of local conditions up there, but if you do not 
want to allow the canners to have title to the fisheries in Alaska, then 
one remedy is to do with those fisheries what you have done with the 
coal lands. That was the purpose I had in paraphrasing section 6 
of this bill by inserting the words "coal mines" in place of fisheries. 

Mr. Curry. Have any of them been opened ? 

Mr. AVickersham. No, sir; and, in my judgment, they will not 
be under the present leasing system, except in this way: The Gov- 
ernment is building a great railroad into the Matanuska coal fields, 
and that road will be constructed this year or next. The Govern- 
ment will then be able to make one lease, probably, if some big con- 
cern can secure a complete monopoly of both the coal and the rail- 
road. In my judgment, the leasing system is open to the objection, 
just as this bill is, that it will lay the foundation for a private 
monopoly backed by the power of the United States Government. 
I do not want to discuss that, because you gentlemen know more 
about it than I do, or, at least, you know more about the principle 
of it ; but that is one method by which you may conserve and protect 
the fisheries in Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. If the leasing system were adopted they would cer- 
tainly be conserved, because nobody would lease them. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; they would. You could lease every one 
of them. The Fish Trust would be leasing them very promptly, 
and if they could get them as cheaply as the coal lands in Alaska 
are being offered for lease, they would secure them for less than the 
taxes they are now paying. 

Mr. Curry. The taxes are less than any lease they would have to 

p a y- 

Mr. Wickersham. There is another method which is being adopted 
in Alaska by the Federal Government 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). Do you prefer the leasing system to this 
provision ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I would much prefer it, because under the leas- 
ing system you could reserve the right to control and protect the 
fisheries, and you could reserve the right, if you wanted to, to pre- 
vent monopoly. I oppose the leasing system, but I do approve 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). There is another difference, because a 
leasing bill would have a period of termination. 

Mr. Wickersham. And this has not. 

Mr. Curry. It has a period of three years. 

Mr. Hardy. No, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. No; the three-year period in this bill is merely 
the date of abandonment for failure to build traps and fish the site. 
If the trap-site owner pays his small annual license and traps the 
ground once in three years there is no limitation of time; it is 
perpetual. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 319 

Mr. Hardy. The Government would not have the right to pre- 
scribe new terms at the end of any period under this bill ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; the trap-site claimant holds the whip and 
will do the driving. 

Mr. Hardy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Wickersham. Another system being worked out in Alaska 
to-day has, I think, some advantages over this bill. Not long ago 
the President reserved the Aleutian Islands and an area of water 
around them; he put it in a state of Federal reserve — land, water, 
and all. The United States is leasing privileges there under the 
authority supposed to be given, I think, to the Secretary of Com- 
merce. They have reserved land and waters and lease the right 
to fish therein. Not long ago, at Metlakatla, in southeastern Alaska, 
a lease was made to a man by the name of P. E. Harris. The fishing 
rights on the island have been leased to him, the reserve extending 
out 3,000 feet from the island and he has the benefit of the exclusive 
fishing of Annette Island. I understand that Mr. Harris pays 15 
cents a case for each case of salmon canned by him. How about that, 
Mr. Jones? 

Mr. Jones. I do not know anything about it. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am told so. 

Mr. Bower. It is a matter which is being handled by the Depart- 
ment of the Interior. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is another point I wanted to bring 
out. 

Mr. Bower. The island reserve to which you refer was created by 
act of Congress in 1891. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; the island was reserved by the act of 
March 3, 1891, as an Indian reservation. 

Mr. Bower. Therefore its waters 

Mr. Wickersham (interposing). Are handled by the Department 
of the Interior. The island being under the Interior Department, 
its affairs are handled by the Secretary of the Interior, while the 
Aleutian Islands, in another department, are being handled by an 
entirely different department and group of men. Both departments 
under different laws are controlling the fisheries in Alaska, and both 
of them lease special privileges. 

Mr. Bower. The Annette Island reserve is by reason of the Presi- 
dential proclamation recently promulgated administered by the Sec- 
retary of Commerce in respect to the fishing laws. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is probably true. As bad as such a 
scheme is it has some advantages even over this bill, because there 
you do reserve the title and you can limit the lessee to a fixed term 
of years. I believe the lease to Harris is for only five years, and 
he pays 15 cents a case for his fish. I mention the 15 cents per case 
again because these cannery representatives here want you to reduce 
it from 4 cents to 2 cents per case for them. But Harris is volun- 
tarily paying, under a contract with the Government of the United 
States, 15 cents per case. 

Mr. Hardy. That is on what island ? 

Mr. Wickersham. It is at Metlakatla, on Annette Island, in south- 
eastern Alaska. 

Mr. Hardy. Is that in southeastern Alaska? 



320 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is away down on the lower border, next to 
Seattle. There are several remedies which may be suggested to pro- 
tect these fisheries, but if I were doing it I would turn them over to 
the Territory of Alaska and put the burden upon it of caring for the 
industry. I would give to the Bureau of Fisheries power to clo the 
scientific work necessary. I would give them appropriations with 
wliich to clo scientific and hatchery work and insist upon them doing 
it right. They are scientists. Dr. Smith has been connected with 
the Bureau of Fisheries ever since he was 21 years of age. He 
studies the scientific side of it and I suppose Mr. Bower does the same 
thing. 

Mr. Hardy. If this were turned over to the Territory of Alaska, 
and the Territory were given the revenues, would you have any objec- 
tion, if the Government of the United States should deem it necessary 
to expend some money for scientific and preservation purposes, to 
having the necessary funds for those purposes paid over to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States by the Territory ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I would not object. I would favor taking 
out of the funds received from their license fees the proper propor- 
tion necessary to do that work. 

Mr. Hardy. In other words, you think that if the United States 
in its capacity of overlord were doing this business, it should be 
recouped for the expenditures made? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. I would be in favor of that, because it 
would not cost the Territory of Alaska any more to have the Bureau 
of Fisheries do that work than to have their own group of men do it, 
and it would be an assurance to Congress that there was inspection on 
guard for them. 

Mr. Hardy. But you want the whole administrative function per- 
formed by the Territory of Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; it will never be well clone until those on the 
ground and who are deeply interested in the work do it. 

Mr. Hardy. With a contribution from the revenue received to the 
Federal Government to clo its part of the inspection work and 
scientific work? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. And I would not object to putting in that 
bill a clause which would prevent the Territorial Legislature of 
Alaska from imposing any greater pro rata tax upon the fisheries 
than they imposed upon the people of Alaska in exact proportion to 
the value of the property. If that were clone, I am satisfied the 
fisheries of AlasKa would be well cared for. 

Mr. Hardy. Would it not be necessary to restrict them and pre- 
vent them from granting any perpetuity? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; that ought to be done. 

Mr. Hardy. Also prevent the passage of any law that would lead 
to monopoly? 
. Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy. And you would not undertake to avoid any monopoly 
that simply asserts itself by superiority of combination and without 
any special grant to rely upon? 

Mr. Wickersham. I would try to so arrange the location to the 
claims upon the grounds as to give as many people as possible an 
opportunity to get to the fisheries of Alaska, consistent with their 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 321 

preservation. In that way yon Mould reduce monopoly to its lowest 
terms. 

Mr. Hardy. It seems to me, as Judge Alexander has said several 
times, that even under conditions as they are and without any law. 
being- passed to foster them, the big concerns are fast gobbling up 
the little concerns. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; that is going on now rapidly. 

Mr. Hardy. They will do that even if you let them both alone? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. The principal purpose of the leasing bill, 
as put forth by its friends, was to do that very thing, namely, that 
it would prevent 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). Did not those leasing propositions hang 
fire for year after year because nobody seemed to be able to find a 
solution for the prevention of monopoly ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that is true. 

Mr. Hardy. They were held up in the fear that if we opened the 
doors somebody would eventually go in and occupy the whole field, 
and that if we kept the doors shut we would exclude all the others. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. I was in favor of granting title to coal 
lands in Alaska, giving patents, but reserving in the patents the 
right to control and prevent monopoly and excessive prices. A reser- 
vation of that kind in the patent would have permitted Congress, 
without limit of time to prevent the abuses which come with monop- 
oly and unrestrained right to rob the consumer by high prices. 

Mr. Hardy. It all comes back to the fact that the Government must 
maintain perpetual hold on these big resources? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; as it must do on the fisheries, because they 
can not be granted by patent. 

Mr. Hardy. Or else turn them over to a monopoly ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. That is what I wanted to put in the coal- 
land patents of Alaska. 

Mr. Hardy. But those coal lands are leased for a certain period? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; they are leased for 50 years, and they are 
leased at a mere nominal rent and under such terms that the lessee 
is permitted to charge the consumer all the traffic will bear. He is 
part of a Government monopoly, but with unrestrained power to take 
the last penny obtainable from the people who, theoretically, own 
the property. This bill is afflicted with that same curse. 

Mr. Hardy. I remember that we were up against it on that propo- 
sition, and the 50-year period was put in because we felt .that if a 
shorter time were fixed nobody would go in there. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I remember that. 

Mr. Curry. Has not the Interior Department granted a fishing 
monopoly on this island down here [indicating on map] ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I understand so ; Annette Island, I understand, 
has been completely monopolized by one man, under a lease from 
the Interior Department for five years, for which he agrees to pay 
15 cents per case on the output of salmon. 

Mr. Curry. But he has a monopoly? 

Mr. Wickersham. Of those waters but not of the trade. What I 
am objecting to here is that 

Mr. Byrnes (interposing). What do you mean by "not of the 
trade"? 



322 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. What I am objecting to in this bill is that if you 
pass it the title to all of these waters will go into one hand or under 
one control and that, therefore, will amount to a monopoly of the 
trade. However, he is now in competition with other canners. 

Mr. Hardy. He has a monopoly of a small part of the whole 
supply ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. Of course, if there is authority of law for 
doing that in his case, I suppose it can be done on a large scale and 
all the fisheries of Alaska may be thus reserved and leased. 

Mr. Hardy. Is that lease perpetual ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; it is for five years. 

Mr. Hardy. With the right to continue it ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I have not seen it but I think not; I am not 
sure about that. Out on the Aleutian Islands there is another large 
reservation and there is every chance 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). Monopoly is a bad thing, but I do not 
know of anything that could be worse when you couple perpetuity 
with it. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; a legalized monopoly without date is bad. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to suggest to you my remedy 
and I have attempted to make it perfectly plain to you. I would 
turn the control of the fisheries over to the Territory of Alaska with 
every possible provision against monopoly, and with such a division 
of the funds that the fisheries will be looked after, inspected, and 
cared for properly, and I would also provide for hatcheries, if there 
is any virtue in hatcheries, which I very greatly doubt. 

Mr. Curry. We have found them to be a very good thing in Cali- 
fornia. A hatchery is a good thing if it is located in the proper 
place. 

Mr. Wickersham. I hope so. I do not know whether a hatchery 
is a good thing or not. I have become very much prejudiced against 
them on account of this Karluk hatchery. My prejudice may be 
entirely wrong, because I am not an expert on hatcheries, I have 
only the view that any other man gets who merely looks at things 
in which he is not personally or officially interested. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the committee 
to just one other thing in this bill and then I would like to run down 
the bill again for a moment. If this bill should pass as it now 
stands it will repeal those acts of the legislature which have hereto- 
fore levied license fees in Alaska. 

The Chairman. We will certainly take care of that. 

Mr. Wickersham. If that is done, and if there is a saving clause 
put in the bill, of course, the matter would be placed in a different 
light. 

The Chairman. I do not think it is necessary to dwell very long 
on that. 

Mr. Wickersham. I shall not, except to call the attention of the 
committee to the fact that I have here a statement from the chief 
counsel of the Territory showing that the Booth Fisheries Co. now 
owes the Territory $25,471.82. The Alaska Packers Association now 
owes the Territory of Alaska $75,018.31; Libby, McNeill & Libby 
now owe $13,299.56, and the Alaska-Portland Packers Association, 
represented by Mr. Warren, owes $6,468.86. These amounts will be 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 323 

increased very largely by what they will owe this year. The total 
amount that they owe is something like $250,000. 

Mr. Hardy. Cutting out this year? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; not including 1910. I have a statement 
here from the attorney for the Territory giving those figures. There 
are a great many other defects in this bill, and I do not like to let 
them pass. They are approved by the Bureau of Fisheries and the 
representatives of the canners. The point I want to make against 
these locations of trap sites in Alaska is that neither the Bureau of 
Fisheries nor the Government reserves any control of any kind. 
The locator may go out and locate his trap wherever he pleases. 
There are no conditions whatever except that it must run out from 
the shore at right angles. That is the only limit put upon him. 
He may locate wherever he pleases by filing his map, and the mere 
filing of his map gives him title. 

Mr. Bower. There are distance intervals and other restrictions 
that are suggested by the bill. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; I have read those very fully, but the 
Government does not reserve any right to be even consulted about 
where the location shall be, and I think it ought to do so if it is 
going to give title to the locator. I think it ought to reserve some 
light of control, but it does not. 

Mr. Curry. The Government can not divest itself of title to the 
tidelands. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, the Oregon case of Shively v. Bowlby 
(152 IT. S., 1) goes a long ways toward holding that it can. 

Mr. Curry. An act of Congress can not divest the Government 
of its title to tidelands. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think it can; at least it is too serious a ques- 
tion to hazard. 

Mr. Curry. It has been held by the Supreme Court that it can not. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, the Shively v. Bowlby case, from Oregon, 
is the leading case on that question, and I think the court there holds 
just the other way. I do not know how far you are going under the 
terms of this bill, conceding that it is passed in its present shape, 
but I do not think the committee can determine the status of title 
you are giving. However, I am not going over all of the bill now. 
There are a great many things in this bill which, in my judgment, 
ought not to be in it. Another point I want to make against it in 
addition to the monopoly clause and the clause taking all. power of 
taxation away from the Territory is that there is not much left in 
it which is not now the law of the Territory. I can go all over it and 
point it out to you if you wish me to do so. 

The Chairman. We are going to study those statutes ourselves. 

Mr. Wickersham. The sections of the law that are now in force 
I have marked here, and I will be glad to leave this marked copy 
with you, if you desire it. The laws of Congress applicable to these 
fisheries in Alaska cover substantially everything in this bill which 
relates to the control, conservation, and protection of the fisheries, 
except that there are some very slight changes; but they do not 
amount to anything. With the power which the Secretary of Com- 
merce now has to make rules and regulations, I think he can sup- 
plement the laws himself by enacting rules and regulations, and 



324 ALASKA PISHEKIES. 

they would cover very much the same subjects that they have written 
into this bill. I certainly should not hesitate to do that if I were 
the Secretary of Commerce, and I do not think the Secretary will. 
I do not know of any rule or regulation that the Secretary has ever 
made that is against the interest of the public up to date, and I do 
not think he needs to make any to add to the present law all that 
they have put in this bill. The question of weekly closed periods, 
the question of closed waters, the unlawful destruction of fish, and 
the pollution of streams 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). He could put in there the distances at 
which these traps should be set? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; everything of that kind could be covered 
by his own enactments of law under llis present power to make rules 
and regulations. 

Mr. Hardy. And just how far they should extend? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy. The number of jiggers and all that sort of thing? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; I have no doubt about it. 

Mr. Hardy. So your position is that everything necessary could 
be put into the present law, if not already there, simply by an ad- 
ministrative order ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; and for that 'reason I do not make much 
of a point against these administrative amendments. Generally 
speaking, there is no very great evil in them. They are unnecessary,, 
and they are not needed in this law 5 and add nothing to the power 
of the department to conserve or protect the fisheries of Alaska. 
They are merely verbal changes, and the other changes are without 
any reason. 

Mr. Hardy. One of the points made by the department was their 
lack of funds to carry out the law, and your proposition is to give 
them sufficient funds from the revenues to administer all the parts 
of the law that they are charged with if the matter is turned over 
to the Territory ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; that can be done by reserving from the 
funds raised by license fees a sufficient amount to equal the sum now 
appropriated by Congress for that purpose, and it will not impose 
any hardships, for if the Territory had to do the work of inspection, 
etc., it would have to pay therefor an equal sum. 

Mr. Curry. If the fisheries are turned over to the legislature why 
should the department have any funds with which to supervise the 
fisheries? They would have nothing to supervise; all they would 
have to do would be to do as they do in other States and Terri- 
tories — put in some hatcheries and turn the fish loose. 

Mr. Wickersham. I hope they have done more work in the 
United States in proportion than they have done in Alaska in the 
last 10 years. 

Mr. Curry. They have no authority to do more than they have 
done in the States, and they would not have any authority in Alaska 
to do more than they do in the States, even if the fisheries were 
turned over to Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. That depends upon the character of the legis- 
lation turning them over to Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. If Alaska wants the fisheries she wants them, and if 
she does not want them she does not. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 325 

Mr. Goodwin. Could the law be so drawn, if your views should 
be carried out, as to turn over to Alaska so much money, which 
would be the amount needed less the amount required for regula- 
tion '. 

Mr. Wickersham. Undoubtedly ; if you want to put that restrict- 
ing clause in. I would want to put in a bill of that kind — I would 
if I drew it — a clause against monopoly. I do not believe the legis- 
lature ought to have unlimited control of the fishery resources of 
Alaska at this time by any means. I know that all sorts of prohi- 
bitions are made against legislatures doing things of that kind, and 
I do not see any objection to it here. On the other hand, this bill 
goes to the other extreme and takes away from the Territoiy of 
Alaska any possible power or control over the fisheries. We have 
got but one power now, and that is a very limited one, namely, the 
levying of additional license fees, although it seems to be doubtful 
whether we have that power. However, we think we have, and the 
courts have held that we have, but we do not have anything else. 
We do not have any other control; we have never been responsible 
for the fisheries in Alaska in any way. 

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that I have any more to say, 
although there is a lot I could say. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions to ask of Mr. 
Wickersham ? 

Mr. Byrxes. I want to ask you one question. Did I understand 
you to say that in the preparation of this bill you had not been 
consulted at all by anybody ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I was not consulted at all by anyone. 

Mr. Byrnes. Did you know of its being framed, and did you ask 
to be consulted ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I did not know it was being framed and I was 
not asked, of course, anything about it. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question or two about the policy 
you have in mind. I assume, representing the people of Alaska, that 
you are interested, as they should be, in conserving its resources, 
the fisheries in particular? 

Mr. Wickersham. I certainly am. 

The Chairman. If the present methods of fishing are depleting 
the fish supply, they ought to be stopped; is not that true? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; that is true. 

The Chairman. If they are seining at the mouths of these streams 
and not allowing the fish to go up and spawn, that would certainly 
be destructive of the fish supply? 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no doubt about that. 

The Chairman. And looking at it from the standpoint of revenue, 
the people of Alaska are interested in having this industry pay its 
proportionate share of the cost of maintaining the Government in 
Alaska — the building of public roads, the maintenance of schools, 
and all other governmental purposes? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes ; there ought to be no favorites. 

The Chairman. They are some of the policies that all of the people 
should be interested in? 

Mr. Wickersham. They are. 

40232— pt 5— 10— -5 



326 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. If they conserve the industry and if the industry 
contributes its just share toward the support of the Government in the 
shape of taxes, the interests of the Territory would be taken care of 
and that would cover substantially the whole policy as it aifected 
Alaska, would it not? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 

The Chairman. The people in the States who eat the salmon 
must pay for it, of course, while in Alaska they get the salmon for 
food free. In the States, those who purchase the output of Alaska 
want to do so at a reasonable price, hence they would not want an 
unreasonable tax assessed against the industry, because it would be 
charged to the consumer and it would simply be unnecessarily bur- 
dening ourselves. So far as a monopoly is concerned, of course, that 
is a very serious question and it is a difficult matter to determine 
just how to control it. in a practical way, whether by limiting the 
number of traps that any one man may have, or in some other way. 

I would not undertake offhand to suggest just how that might be 
done, and I would regret very much to have all of the fisheries in 
Alaska come under the control of one concern, because if that hap- 
pened, then, of course, that one concern could control the price to the 
consumer of the country. But that is a matter of greater interest to 
us than it is to the people in Alaska, because so long as the industry 
is conserved and they get a reasonable revenue from it they are taken 
care of and their interest ceases there. The question of a monopoly 
and, as a consequence, the increase in price, is a matter of greater 
concern to us than it is to them. As long as the laws are so framed 
as to provide for the conservation of the supply the people of Alaska 
are not hurt, but if a monopoly exists and that monopoly can control 
the price, they, of course, make an additional charge to the consumer 
here. • 

Mr. Curry. Could not that condition be met by limiting the num- 
ber of pound nets that airy one company could have ? 

The Chairman. I think that is something that we must meet, and 
I think it is a question that interests us more than it does the people 
of Alaska. Now, just one other question about policy and I want to 
refer to divided control. If this committee should report a bill pro- 
viding for a license tax on this industry and then reserve to the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska the right to levy a local tax, divided control would 
necessarily result. It has been suggested that that might be a wise 
thing to do, but looking at it from the standpoint of revenue and 
the cost of assessing and collecting the tax. would it not be better to 
turn over the whole thing to the Territory of Alaska or else allow 
the Bureau of Fisheries, or some other department of the Govern- 
ment, to have entire control of the industry, taxing the industry and 
then seeing that the Territory of Alaska gets its fair share of the 
revenues? As far as that is concerned, speaking offhand and with- 
out any reflection, I think you ought to have all of it except the abso- 
lute cost of administering the law and conserving this resource. I do 
not think the States ought to have any part of it except that part nec- 
essary to enforce the law and conserve the fish, in addition to the 
amount necessary to collect the tax. Those are questions of policy 
that have impressed me as we have gone along. 

Mr. Wtckersham. So far as enforcing the law is concerned, we 
have all necessary officials there, as you have in the States, for the 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 327 

enforcement of the laws. We have courts which are maintained by 
the Government and 

The Chairman (interposing). I think the history of the adminis- 
tration of laws in Territories is that such administration has always 
been lax. So far as monopoly is concerned, I think that these same 
influences that you fear would be just as powerful) if not more 
powerful, there than here. 

Mr. Wickersham. I would not guarantee against them, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. They will assert themselves, wherever they are. 

Mr. Wickersham. They do, undoubtedly. 

The Chairman. Take the railroads as an example. There was a 
time when the railroads absolutely controlled legislation in our 
States, and we are just recently getting out from under that control. 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. On the other hand, a great many people 
of your State have gone into Alaska and they carry those ideas with 
them, and they are adopting better systems of control by reason of 
the fact that they get so many men who have been educated in those 
matters in the States. 

The Chairman. You have one man in Alaska who was born 4 
miles from the town in which I have lived for 40 years. He went to 
Montana when it was a Territory, and went from there to Alaska. 
He ought to be pretty well schooled by this time. I know he went 
out there and sunk about $150,000 in the coal mines of Alaska. 

Mr. Hardy. In j^our bill providing for the turning over of these 
affairs to the Territorial legislature have you incorporated such pro- 
hibitive features as we have been talking about, namely, as to the 
prohibition of monopoly, and another feature which you mentioned 
but which I can not now think of? 

Mr. Wickersham. I have not, though our legislature can not con- 
vey title and do other acts of that kind as Congress can. I have not 
attempted limitations because I knew the matter would have to come 
up for discussion. 

Mr. Hardy. Would you be willing to turn over to the Territorial 
legislature, ad libitum and without restriction, the absolute power 
to do these things, in view of the fact that the Territorial legislature 
might pass just the kind of a bill you are objecting to now and put 
into positions of power men who could convert those positions into 
monopoly ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; I would not. 

Mr. Hardy. So in your own bill .you would be afraid to trust them? 
You would be afraid to trust your own bill ? 

Mr. Wickersham. No. Our own legislature does not have the 
power that Congress has. Our own legislature, for instance, in the 
matter of taxation is limited by the act of Congress not to exceed 
1 per cent, so as to that matter they could not impose any burdens 
upon the people. 

Mr. Hardy. The}?" could give them everything? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; on the other hand, our legislature has no 
authority to give. 

Mr. Hardy. As I undestand, your bill would be substantially an 
organiG act, so far as this property is concerned? 

Mr. Wickersham. Only so far as the control is concerned, and not 
so far as making grants of public fishery is concerned, because that is 



328 ALASKA FISHEEIES. 

specifically limited and reserved by the act. The legislature could 
not do that. Congress can grant fisheries or the mining land or the 
coal land, but the legislature of Alaska can not. 

Mr. Hardy - . But under your act, if Congress should now give them 
authority to administer the fisheries, could not they then pass a bill 
giving this same right to locate nets and keep them alive, renewing 
them once in three years, just the same as this bill does? 

Mr. Wickersham. Possibly. They could not possibly convey any 
title. 

Mr. Hardy t . They could convey the same kind of title that this 
bill does? 

Mr. Wickersham. I am not sure it could — probably not. Certainly 
not without the special authority of Congress. 

Mr. Hardy. One that might be made perpetual in the case of a 
corporation, for instance, that does not die ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I am not sure; I would not like to say they 
could. ] 

Mr. Hardy-. You would want to look over this bill carefully ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. In view of what has been said in these 
long hearings. I should want to put a limitation on to save the ques- 
tion ; I think it should be done in any bill. 

Mr. Hardy'. That is your first choice, and your second choice is a 
bureau that would have charge of all of these activities, coordinated 
and centralized? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir; and to give that bureau the control 
which all of these bureaus now have. It should be a development 
board within the Territory of Alaska, residing there, and would be 
there all the time and have nothing else to do. That is Mr. Lane's 
idea. Of course, I think that the Territorial legislature should have 
control, but if the committee does not agree there are many other 
ways of doing it. 

Mr. Curry-. Would not the power be centralized ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Not at all. The development board would have 
no judicial power, no legislative power ; they would only have admin- 
istrative power; only the power which a Federal administrative offi- 
cer has to enforce the laws passed by Congress. It is not proposed to 
give them any other power. 

The Chairman. Is there anyone else who desires to be heard? 

Mr. Wickersham. Hon. Frank Aldrich, of Nome, Alaska, is pres- 
ent and desires to be heard. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK ALDRICH. 

The Chairman. Mr. Aldrich, what is your business? 

Mr. Aldrich. I have lived in Alaska for 26 years. I follow min- 
ing, but I was a member of the first Alaska Legislature, of 1913, and 
I am now a member of the Territorial senate. 

Mr. Curry. Do you mine for yourself ? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir. I have followed mining for 36 years. 

Mr. Curry\ Where are your mines located ? 

Mr. Aldrich. At Auk Bay, 14 miles from Juneau. I have inter- 
ests in the interior of Alaska. I have interests at Nome, where 1 
have resided for the last 17 years. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 329 

Mr. Curry. Are you working all your mines? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes. sir ; I am Avorking them all. 

Mr. Curry. Are they gold mines ? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes. sir; gold mines. I have not gone off of the 
track since they demonetized silver. I was a silver miner in Montana. 
I have lived in the Territories ever since I was 18 years of age. I 
have had experience as a member of the legislature along the lines 
that you are considering here — the fishing interests of Alaska. 

I do not believe that I could improve upon any of the remarks that 
Delegate Wickersham has advanced to you. He has told you abso- 
lutely the truth and the actual conditions that exist in Alaska. The 
only part that I do not agree with him about is that there is not any 
other method but to turn the fish over to the Territorial legislature. 
You can not have any reason to doubt the honesty or sincerity of our 
legislature. If you take the fish from the control of the legislature 
you might just as well repeal the organic act. You will deprive 
Alaska of every part of her taxable revenue. I had the honor of 
being chairman of the ways and means, revenue, and taxation com- 
mittee in the Territorial legislature, and I know the conditions that 
exist in our Territory. 

As I stated, I do not know that I can improve upon anything which 
Judge Wickersham has stated to you ; but I want you to understand 
that he has told you the absolute truth as to the conditions that exist 
there. I have sat behind the judge for two days. I stopped here in 
Washington on my way to St. Louis, where I am going to attend the 
Democratic convention : and if there is any way in which I can assist 
the judge I should be glad to do so. I should be pleased to answer 
any questions which you gentlemen might care to ask. 

Mr. Byrnes. Tell us about the passage of your revenue law. 

Mr. Aldrich. In 1913 we were under the impression that under 
the organic act we had a right to legislate on fish and game. We 
had a committee on fish and game in the Territorial Legislature, of 
which Mr. Sutherland, a mining partner of mine, was the chairman. 
At that time I was a member of the legislature, the first Alaska Legis- 
lature, representing the second judicial division of Nome. When that 
bill came up for consideration I had the privilege of listening to all 
the arguments that were made by the trap men, the purse seiners, and 
the gill netters; and Mr. Bower who is present here, came from 
Washington to attend the committee hearings, and he will agree, I 
am sure, with what I tell you to-day. From the evidence, it seemed 
like the Bureau of Fisheries people were afraid that they would lose 
control of the fish of the Territory. We put it up to the Attorney 
General to ascertain whether or not we had a right to legislate under 
the organic act, and not getting any answer from that, Ave did not 
pass any bill along those lines, but we did pass a taxation bill. We 
Avere, most of us, miners; Ave Avere not trained jurists or laAvyers. 
While Ave had a number of lawyers in the senate, Ave passed bills 
which Avere declared unconstitutional, which Avere in conflict Avith the 
interstate-commerce clause. Our revenue bill that we passed was 
null and void for tAvo years, until we met at the second legislature. 
In the bill that we now have we added the additional tax on the 
canneries of 4 cents a case on reds. I do not remember what it Avas, 
but you have it here. That amended the bill passed in 1913. That 



330 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

was agreed upon, as Judge Wickersham has told you, by Mr. Heck- 
man, who is one of the largest canners in Alaska, as being satisfac- 
tory. 

The Chairman. Did you hear him state that it was agreeable to 
him? 

Mr. Aldrich. I was a member of the committee with him. He 
was a member from the house, and I was a member from the senate, 
and he agreed that his company should pay those taxes. 

Mr. Byrnes. He only agreed as to his company ? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrnes. He did not speak for the other companies ? 

Mr. Aldrich. I suppose he had no right to do that. 

The Chairman. Did his company pay them? 

Mr. Aldrich. They have paid them under protest; that is, the 
money was paid under protest. They took it into the court at Juneau, 
and the court decided in favor of the Territory. It is now before 
the court of appeals at San Francisco. They have not yet reached 
a decision. 

The Chairman. When do you anticipate that a decision will be 
reached ? 

Mr. Aldrich. We anticipate a decision any time. Before I left 
Alaska I understood that it would come up soon. 

I heard some remarks here yesterday by Judge Wickersham in 
regard to double taxation on the fishermen alone in the Territory of 
Alaska. I wish to state that all the business in the Territory, from 
a scavenger up, pays double taxes. In all our municipalities there is 
a 2 per cent tax. The tax is greater on the business man and the resi- 
dent of Alaska than it is upon the fisherman of Alaska. The only 
ones who do not pay double taxes in the Territory are the lawyers 
and automobiles, and they are both luxuries. The organic act did 
not contain any tax on them. They are the only ones that I know 
of in the Territory who do not have to pay double taxes. 

Mr. Curry. You pay double taxes ? 

Mr. Aldrich. In the Compiled Laws of Alaska you have a Fed- 
eral tax on business and trade which you deny the Alaska Legislature 
from having any control over. Then, the municipalities have an- 
other tax. 

Mr. Curry. That is for the municipal government ? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir ; and the schools. 

Mr. Curry. That is not double taxation? 

Mr. Aldrich. Well, it is not equal taxation, and it does not overlap 
the taxes put on the fishermen. 

Mr. Curry. You are adding your municipal tax to the Territorial 
tax? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. That is not double taxation ? 

Mr. Aldrich. That is what we consider it — double taxation. They 
are paying the taxes. 

Mr. Byrnes. You have to pay two taxes ? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir; we are paying more than the fishermen, 
and they reside outside of the country. 

The Chairman. You have been out of the States so long that you 
do not know much about taxation. We have a city tax, a school 
tax, a township tax, a county tax, a State tax, and a road tax. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 331 

Mr. Hardy. And in my State we have the same property taxed 
twice under two different guises. 

Mr. Curry. You state that if the Territory did not have the tax on 
the business that it would lose half of its revenue? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. We have been informed that the fisheries have about 
$10,000,000 invested in shore property. 

Mr. Aldrich. That is about what it is. 

Mr. Curry. Is that one-half of the taxable value of all the prop- 
erty in Alaska ? 

Mr. Aldrich. There is no shore property taxed in Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. You do not seem to get my question. How much is 
the taxable value of the property in Alaska ? 

Mr. Aldrich. All we have to go by is the output of the mines 
and the fisheries. 

Mr. Curry. Is that the value of the property in Alaska — 
£10,000,000 ? 

Mr. Aldrich. The shore fisheries? 

Mr. Curry. I am talking about the property in Alaska. 

Mr. Aldrich. We have no report. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is all Government land. 

Mr. Curry. You have mines? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. And you own some mines? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. And you have railroads and telephones? 

Mr. Wickersham. Congress exempted the railroads from taxation 
for five years in our organic act of 1912. 

Mr. Curry. What is the value of the taxable property ? 

Mr. Wickersham. The only property in Alaska that is taxed is 
inside of the municipalities, there are no titles outside, and that will 
not exceed $20,000,000 ; I do not think so. 

Mr. Curry. That includes the Guggenheim mines and everything? 

Mr. Wickersham. The Guggenheim mines pay their taxes. 

Mr. Curry. That includes the Treadwell mine ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; they pay also. 

Mr. Aldrich. They were the first to pay the taxes. 

Mr. W t arrex. How much do the fisheries amount to ? 

Mr. Aldrich. I understand that Mr. Heckman figured it up and it 
amounts to the same thing as the taxes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Just as Gov. Strong said, our government in 
Alaska, especially our taxing organization, is in such an inchoate 
and new state that there are inequalities undoubtedly, but it is be- 
cause of the situation there. We have not yet had time in that great 
territory with the title to all the property in the Government sub- 
stantially, as it is, to get an organization in shape to make it equal. 
There is no question about that. It Avould cost, as pointed out by the 
governor, probably 00 per cent to collect the taxes in the distant parts 
of the Territory. 

Mr. Curry. You exported last year about $40,000,000 of stuff from 
Alaska ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. That seems to be a pretty good return ? 



332 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Wickersham. $21,000,000 of fish. 

Mr. Curry. A pretty good return on the investment in Alaska ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. If it is only assessed at $20,000,000 % 

Mr. Wickersham. I doubt if there is that much property assessed 
in Alaska in the towns. 

Mr. Curry. The Guggenheim mines, the Trea dwell mine, and 
those mines are not in any municipality? 

Mr. Wickersham. No; but they are taxed under the law passed 
by Congress. They are not taxed by the people of Alaska. They are 
taxed by Congress, so much a stamp, etc. 

Mr. Warren. Do you not tax them also? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. We have a tax of one-half of 1 per cent 
on the output. 

Mr. Warren. Why do you not put the same tax on the canneries? 

Mr. Aldrich. Mr. Heckman said we had. 

Mr. Warren. You would have received about $130,000. What 
per cent would that be on the canneries? 

Mr. Aldrich. That is a matter of adjustment for the people here. 
I can not tell you offhand, but at the time when this matter was being 
discussed in conference, and there was free conference, I was on the 
committee from the senate, and Mr. Heckman was the chairman, and 
when we raised the rate from 3 to 1 cents he figured out that that 
would be just about equal to one-half of 1 per cent. 

Mr. Warren. That would make the yearly income from the can- 
neries $26,000,000, whereas the gross value of the output is only about 
$20,000,000 yearly. 

Mr. Aldrich. I can not go into that here. All I can do is to indorse 
every word Which Delegate Wickersham has said. He has repre- 
sented the Territory for eight years, and he has not told you anything 
but the bare truth about the conditions in Alaska. As you can see, 
it is a large Territory. 

Mr. Hardy. Senator, are you pretty well acquainted with the senti- 
ment of the public officials of the Alaskan government? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. Are they in unison and harmony with the views ex- 
pressed by the Delegate and yourself here, as far as you know, or 
do you know? 

Mr. Aldrich. As to all of the Federal officials appointed in Alaska, 
I can say yes, they are; but we have a bunch of officials foisted 
upon us that we call " carpetbaggers, 1 ' who have landed on us from 
time to time. They do not know Alaska or the Alaskans. They are 
not in sjanpathy or accord at any time. They are not actual Alaskans. 
This is my first trip here. They do not appear before the commit- 
tees unless they represent some private interest in the Territory ; but 
the Federal officials in the Territory of Alaska who are local ap- 
pointees indorse every word which Judge Wickersham has stated 
here to-day and yesterday. That is, the bona fide Alaskans. 

Mr. Curry. Have you had any experience yourself in the fisheries ? 

Mr. Aldrich. No, sir. 

Mr. Curry. Have you ever visited the canneries ? 

Mr. Aldrich. I have been through the canneries, I have visited 
them, but not for an inspection. 1 have visited the canneries from 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 333 

Bristol Bay to Cooks Inlet, the principal canneries of southeastern 
and southwestern Alaska, in my travels through the Territory. 

Mr. Curry. What do you think of the present system of fishing; 
should it be changed? 

Mr. Aldrich. I know this, that some of the principal streams are 
being rapidly depleted, but I can not offer any remedy. I am sure 
that if you leave it with the Alaskan people that they will offer reme- 
dies that will settle it satisfactorily. 

Mr. Curry. Do you know of any Alaskan, who knows anything 
about the fishing industry, who would be able to take hold of this 
situation ? 

Mr. Aldrich. Absolutely, many of them ; men who are responsible 
fishermen and who have been there for 20 years. I can name men 
who are known to Mr. Bower. Bob Bell is one. I can name Tom 
Keegan. They are fishermen who have been there over 20 years. It 
is the local fisherman that we want to protect more than anyone else. 
I hope you will give those fishermen more than you do the fishermen 
that come from below. 

Mr. Byrnes. The people who have been up there for some time 
want as much power and local government as they can possibly get ? 

Mr. Aldrich. We certainly do. I think they are just as capable 
as the people in any State or Territory of the United States. 

Mr. Warren. What do you suppose is the value of the Bonanza 
mine ? 

Mr. Aldrich. I would not want to put a price on anybody's prop- 
erty. 

Mr. Warren. Just a rough estimate? 

Mr. Aldrich. It might be worth $1,000,000 and it might be worth 
$10,000,000 ; I can not say. 

Mr. Warren. What is it producing? 

Mr. Aldrich. Wlien I came down it was producing about $100,000 
per month of copper ore ; that is, the raw ore. 

Mr. Warren. Is it not generally conceded that the}^ have put in 
over $10,000,000? 

Mr. Aldrich. From $35,000,000 to $40,000,000. 

Mr. Warren. That would make the value of the mine considerably 
more than that ? 

Mr. Aldrich. That is owing to where it is. 

Mr. W'arrex. How much do you think they have put in, including 
their railroad? 

Mr. Aldrich. I have no idea. 

Mr. Warren. The value of the mine would probably run up to 
$100,000,000? 

Mr. Aldrich. I do not know. I would not want to set a price on 
anybody's property. 

Mr. Warren. Do you know the value of the Treadwell mine? 

Mr. Aldrich. No, sir; I understand that they have paid in 38 years 
between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000. 

Mr. Warren. It is a very valuable mine? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir ; they are now sinking a shaft to the 1,000- 
foot level. 

Mr. Warren. Do voii not suppose that the value of all the mining 
property in Alaska would run up to $500,000,000? 



334 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes; I think it would. 

Mr. Warren. The value of the fisheries is $26,000,000 

Mr. Wickersham (interposing). The value of the fisheries is 
$400,000,000. 

Mr. Warren. It is not half what the taxable property of the mines 
is worth ? 

Mr. Aldrich. I can not answer as to what the mines are worth. 
Take the report of the collector for 1914, and the fisheries exceeded 
the mineral products by $1,000,000. 

Mr. Warren. For the year ? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir ; for 1914. 

Mr. Warren. Do you think that the money put in exceeds the value 
of the mines ? 

Mr. Aldrich. That is the product, the raw product; that came 
from the fish. 

Mr. Warren. That is, the raw fish ? 

Mr. Aldrich. All kinds of fish. 

Mr. Warren. You mean the value of the fisheries, including the 
boxes, tins, and everything? 

Mr. Aldrich. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrnes. What is the value of the fish alone, compared to the 
mines ? 

Mr. Aldrich. I do not know. 

Mr. Curry. The value of the raw fish caught in Alaska last year 
was about $1,250,000; that is, before salted or canned. 

Mr. Wickersham. Neither the United States nor the Territory of 
Alaska got pay for them, and never have been paid for the fish on 
that or any other basis. 

Mr. Curry. I think the United States collected the tax on the pack. 

•Mr. Wickersham. It would not be anything. 

A question was asked about the taxation of the railroads in Alaska. 
In the organic act it is provided : 

That Congress reserves the exclusive power for five years from the date of 
the approval of this act to fix and impose any tax or taxes upon railways or 
railway property in Alaska. 

Then they limit the other taxes to 1 per cent so that we do not 
have any power — you keep the power away from us — to tax the rail- 
roads and many of these elements of wealth, and we want that power. 

The Chairman. How much revenue do you derive from the cop- 
per, coal, and gold mines in Alaska? 

Mr. Wickersham. There is not a coal mine in Alaska which is 
producing a ton of coal. We do not get anything. 

The Chairman. How much do you derive from the copper mines ? 

Mr. Wickersham. One-half of 1 per cent. 

The Chairman. How many dollars? 

Mr. Wickersham. I filed the treasurer's report which showed 
$90,000 or $100,000 at one time. I do not know how much now. 

The Chairman. How much revenue do you derive from the gold 
mines ? 

Mr. Wickersham. One-half of 1 per cent above $5,000. 

The Chairman. About how much in dollars? 

Mr. Wickersham. I can not tell you. They all pay their propor- 
tion. That is all I know. That was the intention of the governor 
and the legislature, to have these people pay the same proportion. 



ALASKA FISHEEIES. 335 

Mr. Hardy. What was the Territorial revenue last year? 
Mr. Wickersham. I do not know. I have filed the treasurer's 
report. 

The Chairman. Here is the treasurer's report : 

[Territory of Alaska, treasurer's office, Juneau.] 
Receipts from inception of treasurer's office, July 28, 1913, to Dec. 31, 1914, 

General fund, as per separate schedule $54,641.03 

Fisheries fund, as per separate schedule 1,371.92 

Forest-reserve fund, as per separate schedule 59, 114. 50 

Deposit interest fund, as per separate schedule 271. 14 

Total receipts 115, 39S. 59 

Disbursements from inception of treasurer's office, July 28, 1913, to Dec. 31, 

191',. 

General fund, as per separate schedule $42,041.68 

Fisheries fund, as per separate schedule 

Forest-reserve fund, as per separate schedule 

Deposit interest fund, as per separate schedule 271.14 

Total disbursements 42, 312. 82 

Balance sheet, Dec. 31, 191.',. 

General fund $12,599.35 

Fisheries fund 1, 371. 92 

Forest-reserve fund 59, 114. 50 

Deposit interest fund 

Total in all funds 73,085.77 

Treasurer's cash balance, Dec. 31, 1911/. 

On deposit with B. M. Behrends Bank, Juneau $25, 206. 51 

On deposit with First National Bank, Juneau 17.779.08 

On deposit with First National Bank, Douglas 10, 075. 18 

On deposit with First Bank of Cordova 10, 000. 00 

On deposit with First Bank of Valdez 10,000.00 

Cash in treasurer's safe .. 25.00 

Total cash balance 73, OSS. 77 

Mr. Wickersham. That is not a fair statement even for the fish- 
eries, and it is not a fair statement for any of these interests which 
pay taxes in Alaska, because both the fisheries and the big mines are 
contesting the law. They have not paid. When they do pay, if they 
are obliged to pay, there will be a very much larger sum paid than 
paid by the fisheries and the mines, etc., than his statement 
shows. The payment by the fisheries will amount to about $200,000, 
and, I suppose, the payment by the mines will amount to about the 
same sum. 

Mr. Hardy. They are both contesting the law 1 

Mr. Wickersham. They are both contesting the law. I under- 
stand that they have made an agreement with the Attorney General 
to pay if they are defeated in the courts, which is quite liberal on 
their part as you can see. 



336 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. E. LESTER JONES, SUPERIN- 
TENDENT COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY. 

The Chairman. Dr. Jones, have you anything further to say? 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of those gentlemen who 
were not here, I hope they know my status in this matter. I have 
no connection now with the Bureau of Fisheries. I was asked to 
come here by the chairman of this committee in view of the fact that 
I went to Alaska in 1914:, my trip being approved by the Committee 
of Territories, with a view to ascertaining and seeing first-handed 
all I could during a season, and to note just how true the reports 
were that the supply of salmon was being depleted and the law vio- 
lated. 

Mr. Byrnes. Whom did you say you went for? 

Mr. Jones. For the Federal Government. I was then deputy 
commissioner of fisheries. 

Mr. Wickersham. He went in his official capacity. 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. Now, as to details concerning the condition of 
the fisheries in Alaska to-day, while I do not think they have mate- 
rially changed, I do not know much about last year's pack, etc., be- 
cause my time is fully occupied with other matters of importance. 

The Chairman. You are now the superintendent of the Coast and 
Geodetic Survey? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 

I feel certain that Judge Wickersham must know that my heart 
and thoughts are much in the development of Alaska. He knows 
how hard I am working to help them, not only along the lines of 
protecting human life and commerce, but along lines in general. 

Mr. Wickersham. So long as the Doctor appeals to me I want to 
bear witness that he is a first-class man at the head of the Coast and 
Geodetic Survey. 

Mr. Jones. Thank you. It was not an appeal I made, simply 
stated a fact. I do not want to convey the impression that I learned 
everything about Alaska in the six months I spent there. My trip, 
however, was a hard one and I worked night and day in an effort to 
grasp all the knowledge I could. My report, as well as what I have 
and will say here is based on what I actually observed. I heard a 
great many comments for and against the fishing interests, both 
canneries and fishermen. I would hear some man interested in a 
cannery make a startling statement which I did not lay much stress 
on and I would hear a representative of the fishermen in some part of 
Alaska make an equally startling statement; but that did not deter 
me from remembering the object of my trip, to see first-handed the 
actual conditions. 1 did not go up there to destroy business. I did 
not go up there to make arrests. I did not go there to injure Alaska 
nor Alaskans. I went up there to get information whereby I would 
be of help to all in connection with any future legislation. My one 
aim was, and is, to help Alaska and all concerned. 

Now, before I take up two or three important points with reference 
to my trip, placing clearly but briefly before you certain conditions, 
I would like to refer to this bill. First to section 18. Without read- 
ing it, I will say that it is headed Marine animals included." I 
think you are all familiar with the section without my reading it. It 
gives certain authority to the Bureau of Fisheries for the protection 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 337 

of whales, walrus, sea lion, hair seal, and other marine animals, 
except fur seals and sea otters which are already protected by inter- 
national agreement. I would say eliminate this whole section. The 
whales I will speak of first. There are only two whaling stations in 
Alaska. It is an impossibility for the Bureau of Fisheries or any 
other bureau or one Government to have jurisdiction over the whales 
on account of so many of them being taken on the high seas, and 
I believe we will do more for their future protection by taking the 
matter up with the State Department, for example, preparatory to 
framing an international agreement for their protection, than we 
will by giving to the Bureau of Fisheries any such authority which 
they can not hope to enforce. In place of this I would suggest that 
the whaling stations on land be added to another section which will 
amply insure the collection of the license fees and taxes from those 
two stations and any other shore whaling stations that might be 
established later. 

As far as the walrus is concerned, all the gentlemen who have 
either read or studied the matter know that the walrus is killed 
mostly on the high seas, and I do not see how the walrus can be 
protected by the United States unless the other countries cooperate. 

We now come to the hair seal. I think any protection of the hair 
seal would be a serious mistake for two reasons: First, it is highly 
sought for by the natives of Alaska. They use the skin, which is of 
very little value commercially, for their shoes in winter, moccasins, 
and mucklucks, and I do not think we should place the slightest 
restriction on anything that is going to preclude these natives from 
using something that is almost useless commercially. Furthermore, 
to show the hair seal's uselessness, it, destroys thousands of salmon. 
I have two illustrations in my report which are the best examples 
of a number of cases that came to my attention. In the salmon trap 
were these two hair seals and there were also some four or five hun- 
dred salmon, and I examined every one of them, and all were muti- 
lated, some more seriously than others, but their commercial value 
was destroyed by this menace, and I consider it such and therefore I 
do not believe there should be any protection on the hair seal in 
Alaska. 

Mr. Wickeesham. There ought to be a bounty offered for killing 
them. 

Mr. Jones. I think there ought to be a bounty on other things as 
well. I agree with you, and I think if the natives are "forbidden to 
kill these hair seals it would be not only a great hardship on them, 
but it would injure and jeopardize in a measure the supply of 
salmon — and I do not want to lay too much stress on this one thing, 
but it is one of the causes of the destruction of salmon, although I 
do not say it is destroying a very large quantity of them. 

Now. I have another picture here showing four king salmon 
weighing approximately 30 pounds apiece which hair seals had 
practicajly destroyed. Another case against them is that of gill- 
netted salmon. The gill nets are operated usually by one man, and 
he sets his gill net and may leave it there for several hours, and in 
the meantime when these salmon are gilled hair seals follow them 
up and destro}^ them by mutilating them. I just bring these cases to 
your attention in order to show you the real evil that would be done 
by placing any closed season on this variety of seal. 



338 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Goodwin. Doctor, you say these hair seals are wholly valueless 
commercially ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; practically. 

Mr. Goodwin. But they are of great use in the way of providing 
moccasins for the natives? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; they have a peculiar way of preparing them. 
I could often buy hair seal skins for 10, 15, or 20 cents apiece; in 
fact, I get a number of them free. I saw at Taku Glacier, where I 
went to observe the fishing at the mouth of the Taku River, probably 
2,500 of these hair seals, just lying there on the icebergs, broken off 
from the glacier. A number of fishermen with their gill nets showed 
me the damage that this herd of hair seals were doing to their salmon. 
It only emphasized the fact more strongly to me that there should 
be absolutely no protection on them; and my greatest objection to 
such a law is the way it will hurt the natives, whom, I think, by the 
way, are not getting in many ways all they deserve in this progres- 
sive movement, although matters are getting better in this enlightened 
day, and when I refer to the natives, I mean the Indians, the Aleuts, 
and the Eskimos. 

Mr. Hardy. What is the name of Father Somebody up there? 

Mr. Jones. Father Duncan? 

Mr. Hardy. Yes. 

Mr. Jones. He is at Metlakatla. 

Mr. Hardy. He has been down here looking after the interests 
of those natives. 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir ; the natives on that island were brought down 
form the interior, from British Columbia. 

Mr. Wickersham. They came from British Columbia. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, the other part of the section I want to 
speak on it at the top of page 15, in those five lines where it says : 

It shall be unlawful to take any salmon or other food fish or shellfish by 
means of a spear or gaff, except for domestic consumption, and it shall be 
unlawful to purchase any salmon or other food fish or shellfish taken by means 
of a spear or gaff for commercial use. 

I have already spoken against changing the conditions that affect 
the existence of these natives, having specifically referred to the 
Chilkoot and Chilkat Indians. They should not be prevented from 
fishing in their way, but I think there is a greater evil which has 
occurred to me since some of these details have come back to me. 
Inasmuch as I have been occupied with other duties, they slipped 
my mind for the time being, but as I go into this matter further they 
come back to me. I feel that the Esquimo or Aleut or Indian who 
has been in the habit of drying fish, whether taken with spear or 
with any other crude apparatus, such as the little wheels that they 
use on the Yukon River, should be exempt from these taxes. I am 
not stating just how it should be done, but I do feel that the Federal 
Government, as long as it has control of these matters, should pro- 
tect all those natives. I saw a condition up there that exemplified 
very clearly that there was legislation which had been enacted that 
was very grossly unjust to those unfortunate people. 

Mr. Curry. If the Government prohibits them from hunting and 
fishing, in the way they have done from time immemorial, they 
will starve to death. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 339 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; and I think that any legislation that would 
change their present mode of living — that is, the mode that they 
use in order that they may exist (and lots of them have a very poor 
existence) — should not be enacted. That mode should not be 
changed. And, on the other hand, I think they ought to be helped, 
and we are not helping them by introducing into this bill anything 
that will place the slightest hardship upon them. I want to call 
your attention to a section in the Executive order affecting the Aleu- 
tian Islands Reservation, signed by President Taft, March 3, 1913, 
and section 3, on page 1, reads as follows : 

Residents of the reservation desiring to engage in commercial fishing or the 
hunting, trapping, or propagation of fur-bearing animals or game animals must 
first secure a permit to do so. 

Now, that sounds like a very harmless and easy thing to do, but 
to one who has been there it is a very serious clause to the Aleuts, 
who are the principal residents of this long group of islands, about 
900 miles long. It affects them most seriously. Let me cite the con- 
dition that I found when I landed at Unalaska, which is per- 
haps 200 or 250 miles from the eastern point of the Aleutian 
group, where the steamers en route to Bristol Bay stop com- 
ing from Seward. Possibly six Aleuts met me there with a half- 
breed who could speak English. They were very much disturbed 
because they had been taking a few red salmon, partly for their own 
food and partly to sell or trade for clothing or groceries. 

Sometimes a fishing vessel or some trader may send a boat ashore 
on one of the western group of these islands, 800 miles from the 
nearest post office, and say, " We have some clothing, and we will 
trade this for 250 red salmon." They have dried these salmon. This 
practice is absolutely harmless and can not possibly deplete the 
fisheries, but nevertheless they could not legally continue the custom. 
I consider it very vicious law or regulation which makes it a crime 
for those natives to continue making a living necessary to their 
existence. 

The Chairman. Unless they get a license? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. Just picture the situation in your mind. 
Those natives must get in their kyaks (canoes), travel 800 miles, 
more or less, along the coast (and it is a dangerous coast, too). 
Many times this trip would be impossible, yet to get a permit they 
must mail their letter to Washington and must wait for an answer. 
They would have to wait in Unalaska for two or three months or go 
back home and make another trip, traveling 3,100 miles in all, in 
order that they may trade perhaps the equivalent of one barrel of red 
salmon for some clothing or groceries so that they may exist. That is 
true, gentlemen, and that is one of the things that ought to be 
changed. I recommended a change on my return, but it has not been 
made. 

Mr. Curry. I think we ought to do that in this bill. 

Mr. Jones. That is one condition. Now, there is another. It is 
a little different from fishing, but it does emphasize the point I am 
bringing out regarding the effect of unjust laws on the natives of 
Alaska. For example, a man living on one of the Aleutian Islands 
who wants to catch foxes for propagation purposes. What does he 
have to do? He has to write down to Washington and get a per- 



340 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

mit. I wired from Unalaska, in order to help him get his permit 
promptly, and instead of wiring back consent, inasmuch as it was in 
the fall of the year, they wrote a letter, and when we got the letter 
the permit had expired before the foxes could possibly be secured. 

Mr. Hardy. You could have shut your eyes. 

Mr. Jones. I will tell you gentlemen what I did. You talk about 
shutting my eyes, I told a native in the presence of the Captain 
Commandant of the Kevenue-Cutter Service, who believed, as I did, 
that it was a crime to enforce such legislation on them, to go ahead 
and catch the fish, and if they wanted to put me in jail, I would have 
to go. 

Mr. Wickersham. The same situation exists all over Alaska, ex- 
cept that the white men are not quite as helpless as the natives are. 

Mr. Jones. No, sir; I think these are extreme cases. I want to be 
fair, and I do not want to convey the idea by what I say here that 
the situation in this man's case exists everywhere, but I do want to 
protect the native against any more such legislation. Some of the 
people who took part in formulating this Executive order had never 
been in Alaska, and I do think that those who appear before legis- 
lative bodies for the purpose of giving information relative to new 
laws and regulations should have seen conditions themselves and 
not act on hearsay. 

Mr. Wickersham. I agree with you there. 

Mr. Jones. He can not possibly grasp a situation like this. These 
natives came to me, and: I saw the force of their argument in a 
moment. 

Mr. Bower. I hope you will make it clear that the officials of an- 
other department, rather than ourselves, were responsible for that. 

Mr. Jones. I am glad you said that for the order was largely 
drawn outside of fisheries. 

Mr. Greene. It ought to be called to their attention, whoever is to 
blame for it. 

Mr. Jones. I am not here to condemn or criticize any officials; I 
am here to show that the natives of Alaska should be protected, first 
of all and above everything else, and there is a way being paved in 
this bill for placing more hardship on them that is all wrong. I 
cite the Aleutian Islands condition, because it is something I recom- 
mended changing nearly two years ago, and still nothing has yet 
been clone and those natives in the meantime are technically violating 
the law, and yet some of them I do not believe are, because they are 
afraid to. The Aleutian Islands are not made up of white people. 
These little islands have Aleut settlements of 40, 30, or 20 souls who 
are dying off rapidly. We have taken away from them the oppor- 
tunity to kill fur seals, sea lions, and walrus, and many of them do 
not know any other way of making a living. Now we are trying to 
take away something that I do not think we have any right to do, 
and I would rather see a few sea lions or walrus killed by those peo- 
ple who were there before we had anything to do with the territory, 
and by virtue of that right, if for no other, they certainly should be 
considered before the white man or anything else. The condition 
of the natives of Alaska appeals to me very strongly. I do not want 
to warm up too much on the matter, but I think they are getting a 
very bad deal from the Government — both Federal and Territorial — 
and not in connection with fisheries alone, not by any means. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 341 

Air. Wickersham. xVmen. 

Mr. Jones. That is what I think about it. Go right to the Pribi- 
lof Islands, where those great fur-sen 1 rookeries are worth millions 
of dollars to this Government, and those people are living in houses 
to-day just like the tenement houses in the very worst sections of o in- 
largest cities, and yet Congress does not believe a man who has been 
there and who has no ulterior motive, when he comes down here and 
tells a committee that about 85 per cent of the people on the Pribilof 
Islands are suffering with tubercular troubles, some families living 
seven in a room. This industry is worth millions and millions of 
dollars, and increasing every year — the biggest asset the Government 
has to-day for an assured income — and yet they will not provide ade- 
quate sanitary quarters for the people who are living on those islands, 
Government charges, who are trying to protect these valuable aquatic 
animals. 

Mr. Goodwin. Speaking of the fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, 
you only want the natives provided with homes and given proper 
protection. You would not advocate a return to the slaughter of 
fur seals which was the cause of the extermination of that herd? 
Mr. Jones. Absolutely not, sir. 

Mr. Goodwin. When ft was reduced from 5,000,000 down to 150,000. 
Mr. Jones. Mr. Goodwin, I was not touching on the fur-seal ques- 
tion, but I do favor their proper protection. 

Mr. Goodwin. I did not w T ant you to leave that impression. You 
want the Government to protect the natives but not to resume the 
wholesale killing of fur seals. 

Mr. Jones. I want our Government to perpetuate the fur seals, but 
I do not want them to lose sight of the fact that their public charges 
on those islands are not getting a square deal. That is what I want 
to make clear. 

Mr. Hardy. My recollection is that a percentage of the Alaska fund 
is turned over to the Territory to take care of those consumptives and 
the indigent natives. 

Mr. Jones. No, Judge Hardy, these natives are on a reservation, 
and the Federal Government is solely responsible. It is not the fault 
of the Bureau of Fisheries, because I have been before the committee 
and I have pleaded for funds, and others have pleaded for them, and 
they have not been forthcoming. 
The Chairman. What committee ? 
Mr. Jones. The Committee on Appropriations. 
Mr. Curry. The United States Government has taken over the fur 
seals which these people used to live on and are not now providing 
for them. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, in closing this part of what I have to 

say, unless there are some questions 

Mr. Hardy (interposing. I want to ask you a question. If we had 
one bureau looking after all these laws up there, would not that bod}'' 
look after this matter as well as other matters? Is not one trouble 
the fact that we have a multitude of conflicting jurisdictions up 
there ? 

Mr. Jones. Judge Hardy, the Fisheries, as far as I know, have 
not conflicted with any other bureau or department in the Govern- 
ment; as far as the fisheries are concerned this bureau is distinctly 

46232— pt 5— 1G— 6 



342 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

separated from all other arms of the Government, and can well re- 
main in this enviable position. _ ■ - 

The Chairman. The great difficulty has been, has it not, that the 
Government has not provided facilities to care for them ? 

Mr Jones, Yes, sir. Judge Alexander, the Government is entirely 
responsible in not providing ships and the money to operate those 
ships, and that answers the whole question. There is nothing else to 
be answered as far as not giving sufficient protection to the fisheries 
and also to the natives, as referred to in my recent remarks. 

Mr. Wickersham. You have a vessel up there called the Osprey, 

have you not? „ , ■ 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. I had the pleasure of asking you to come 
aboard. What did you think of her? 

Mr. Wickersham. I would not go across the bay on her, it tliere 
was any wind on. 

Mr. Jones. I slept on her for 63 days. 
Mr Wickersham. You must have had big insurance. 
Mr Jones. One vessel, Judge Wickersham, for southeastern Alaska 
is about as foolish as trying to have one submarine protect all ot our 
coast line. It is just about as sensible. I made an appeal last year 
before the Committee on Appropriations, emphasizing the fact that 
the laws of Alaska pertaining to the fisheries, if they were not ob- 
served was not the fault of the bureau, but because they had not the 
ships, 'and still not a dollar was appropriated This year in the sun- 
dry civil bill, which has just reported, they have given two $o,000 
launches, instead of giving two or three vessels of sufficient size to 
accommodate the officers and crew and making it possible to go into 
all waters, whether rough or smooth, without endangering anyone_s 
life They have not provided a vessel for central Alaska or west- 
ern Alaska, and that is the way it is going to go on and on unless 
Congress takes hold of this matter and meets the issue squarely. 

Mr. Hardy. I believe if you would make this same talk before the 
Appropriations Committee 

Mr Jones (interposing). You do not have a chance, or at least 1 
have never had a chance to speak as freely as you gentlemen have 
permitted me to do here. 

Mr. Hardy. You might get them stirred up a little bit. 1 tnmK 
vou have us here with you. 

Mr Jones. Judge Hardy, I would be delighted to hvean oppor- 
tunity It would be one of the joys of my life to talk 30 minutes 
before the Appropriations Committee without being interrupted. 

Mr. Byrnes. Did you get a hearing at all? 

Mr. Jones. A very indifferent one. 

Mr Byrnes. You mean they interrupted you ( ; , .,, . , 

Mr' Jones. They interrupted me with cross-questions and illogical 
Questions and I could not concentrate myself long enough to think 
along one tangible line instead of several lines. The Bureau of 
Fisheries is not to blame; the natives of Alaska are not to blame, 
the Territory is not to blame; but the Federal Government is to 

} Mt'Hvrdy. I think all parties have made it very apparent to this 
committee that they have not the instrumentalities up there to ad- 
minister any law, hardly. Is not that your idea, Judge Wickersham I 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 343 

Mr. Wickersham. Undoubtedly, that is true; and I do not think 
you ever will have. I think Government control of those utilities up 
there is a complete failure. If you had the bureau which Mr. Lane 
suggests, then I think you would get some administration which 
would be worth something. 

Mr. Jones. Secretary Lane does not know what they have to con- 
tend with in the Bureau of Fisheries nor of their distinctive work 
like I do and like some others. I am not coming here to defend the 
Bureau of Fisheries or the salmon people or any body else; I am 
here to tell the absolute truth, and I know the Territory has many 
things in its favor, but I know the Bureau of Fisheries has been held 
responsible for the things they have been fighting against ever since 
I have been connected with the Government, and you all who know 
Alaska know that I speak the truth. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think it always will be so and that is the very 
defect in the whole situation. 

Mr. Jones. But you said the Federal Government, and I do not 
want the impression to go on the record that it is the Bureau of 
Fisheries which is solely to blame, but it is the lack of support which 
Congress has given them, and they have shoAvn clearly why they 
are handicapped in carrying out the intent of the law. 

I would like to refer to my report on page 6. I took special interest 
in the methods of fishing in Alaska, partly because I have always 
been interested in fishing. I am familiar with Chesapeake Bay, and 
had observed what happened to the shad fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 
due to excessive fishing. So when I went to Alaska, and having 
heard of this argument against traps, as well as other methods of 
fishing, I was very anxious to see, and I did see, a great many traps 
in operation, as well as purse seines and gill nets. This was my con- 
clusion, if you will permit me to read it into the record : 

There is probably no part of this great industry that has created more con- 
troversy than the methods employed in catching the 60,000,000 salmon which are 
taken each year from the waters of Alaska. It is an easy matter for those who 
favor certain forms of fishing apparatus to blame those using other forms for the 
alleged diminution in the supply of salmon, bnt it is not easy for a disinterested 
person to ascertain the relative effect and place the responsibility for any injury 
that may result from any abuses of these methods. 

The four principal methods are trap fishing, purse seining, haul or beach 
seining, and gill netting;. Trolling for king salmon is placed under another 
head, as it is so distinctly a separate business and so closely affiliated with 
mild curing that an independent discussion will prove more helpful than to 
take it up with the principal methods used in catching Alaska's enormous pro- 
duction of sockeye, humpback, silver, and chum salmon. I have studied these 
four methods of fishing from an entirely unprejudiced standpoint, and I have 
noticed the various conditions and have viewed them from every angle. In 
some parts of Alaska certain conditions obtain, in others they are entirely 
different. Therefore, I will endeavor in this part of my report, as well as under 
other heads, to cover all phases of the question looked at from all sides. 

One of the things that impressed me most forcibly was the fact that every- 
one that used any particular kind of fishing gear did so because it suited his 
conditions best and because it was the best business method and produced the 
best result. This feature alone is what every business man tries to bring out 
most clearly in conducting any enterprise. 

When I was in Alaska there were 275 traps, and of those traps 
approximately 65 per cent of them were in southeastern Alaska. 
The condition of the water, the effect of the tides, and the swiftness 
of the current, the character of the bottom, and depth of water are 



344 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

all contributing reasons why the traps are used in various places. 
Fewer men are required to operate a trap than are needed to operate 
a haul or a purse seine. It is absolutely understood in business that 
if anyone can devise a simpler and more economical method of doing 
the business any up-to-date business house will encourage it and dis- 
card the old business method. Now, that is the exact situation in 
regard to the fish trap. It saves labor and time, and I quite agree 
that the success of an industry means the turning out of a good 
article with the least possible expense and in the shortest possible 
time. The principal advantages of the fish trap, which I have 
noted in this report, are these: First, the fish remain alive in the 
pot or spiller, thus permitting their delivery at the cannery in better 
shape than when taken by any other method of capture in vogue 
to-day; and, second, the trap is stationary, and the Government 
official or inspector always knows where to locate it. thus permitting 
of regulation and control quite difficult or almost impossible with 
purse seines and other mobile forms of apparatus. 

Now. as to the objections: First and foremost is the fact that 
traps catch not only salmon but other kinds of fish, which under 
present conditions are not utilized. Second, during the weekly 
close period the owners of traps say that bad weather is the cause 
for not complying with the law. They say. perfectly properly, 
that bad weather does not permit of the closing of these traps, 
which I can readily understand. I have already spoken of that in 
my earlier testimony. To show that I tried to place on the traps 
their full responsibility, I have suggested a curtailment in their 
activities, on account of the ever-increasing fishing and the decrease 
in some sections of the supply of salmon. For that reason I sug- 
gested that the leads be made shorter. I also suggested that the 
space or the area between the traps should be increased, and I 
suggested that the weekly close season be extended. All of those 
things are embodied in this bill. Before I go on with the purse 
seines, I would like to say that in order to be as absolutely fair as I 
could when bringing this to the attention of Congress and others 
interested, I show a true reproduction in my report, page 14, of 
how congested certain areas were with fish traps. But it must be 
understood that that is only in certain sections and that it is not 
general either through southeastern Alaska or any other part of 
Alaska, because you can not use traps everywhere. 

Now, I will take up the matter of purse seines. Purse seines 
are more numerous in Alaska than traps, and their aggregate catch 
of salmon exceeds that of traps. Purse seines are used chiefly in 
southeast* Alaska, and there are two neighboring districts where 
this method of fishing is particularly prevalent, namely, Karta 
Bay, and Cholmondeley Sound, off the eastern shore of Prince of 
Wales Island. By way of example of the heavy and congested 
nature of purse seine operations, it may be said that this past fall 
in the very limited area of these two waters there were about 150 
purse seines fishing at one time. I show accurate illustrations 
on pages 18 and 20 of these purse seines operating close to the mouth 
of a stream where the salmon were congregating en route to their 
spawning grounds. I know from observation that salmon taken 
in the purse seines were placed on barges, and some of them that 
were carried 60 miles to the cannery reached their destination in 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 345 

rather bad condition. I do not say that they should not be canned, 
but I am following out one of the arguments that they are not in 
as good condition and will not keep as long when they reach the 
cannery as fish taken out of the traps. 

The Chairman. Don't they catch other kinds of fish, too, in the 
purse seines? 

Mr. Jones. Not as many. These salmon taken by purse seines 
were in large schools, where they congregated preparatory to ascend- 
ing streams to spawn. The other fish which are moving about strike 
the leads in connection with the traps and will follow it up, going 
on into the traps. I further say in my report : 

As in the ease of traps, the operation of purse seines should be curtailed to 
some extent. 

And I offer arguments how that should be done. I speak of the 
haul or beach seining: 

With the haul seine the same conditions exist to-day as with the purse seine, 
and the same remedies are suggested. In addition, with reference to purse and 
haul seining, I was impressed with the fact that fishermen in some instances do 
not take the short seines upstream, possibly not having any at hand, but they 
go up the stream to where the fish are ascending or spawning and drive them 
back into the deeper water. 

Now, I do not want to convey the impression that there were whole- 
sale violations in Alaska, neither do I want to say there were not 
violations, because I saw them. I do not believe anyone could go to 
Alaska under more favorable conditions than I did. I saw much 
and saw it well. I was not dependent on a private vessel for any of 
my trips. I did not accept a favor from anybody ; the United States 
Government furnished me with all. Therefore you can see that any 
thought in anyone's mind that I had to use certain prWate-owned 
boats, etc., to accomplish any part of my trip could not be used as an 
argument against what I accomplished. I was most particular, be- 
cause certain people had said. " Yes, Jones will go up there, and he 
will dine with the canners, and he will use their vessels, and he will 
not dare come back here and tell the truth." I think in a measure it 
was foolishness to refuse every offer of courtesy, because I think the 
rank and file of the cannery men are just as substantial business men 
as we have in the United States; just as sincere and just as honest, 
and their motives are not anything but good ones; but in view of 
certain prejudicial feeling that existed, and I knew it existed, because 
] heard it expressed freely, I thought I should be unusually careful 
and not give a chance for the slightest criticism. 

Mr. Hardy. And if you were going to repeat your trip you would 
do the same thing in the same way ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes. sir; I think I would. It is better because people 
at long distances put two and two together and they can not differ- 
entiate between enjoying 

Mr. Hardy. You do not want to be in a position where anybody 
can question your motives? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; that is just why I was careful. It was very 
hard at times, for sometimes I went without my meals and was put 
to unnecessary inconvenience, but I deemed it the proper thing to do 
and I carried it out during my entire trip. 

I would now like to refer to the labor question in Alaska. On 
general principles I am in sympathy with the working man and I 



346 ALASKA FISHEEIES. 

am in special sympathy, as I think you have learned, with the na- 
tives of Alaska ; and as I went further on my trip I realized that there 
were many things in connection with the natives that might be cor- 
rected, not by any means always in connection with fisheries. I 
want to read two or three short paragraphs which show briefly my 
impressions on this question: 

Alaska is such a vast Territory and its various enterprises are growing so 
rapidly that the labor question is becoming an important One. As yet the coun- 
try is sparsely settled and must depend largely on imported labor during the 
busy season. This has created a business complication which has not as yet 
been satisfactorily solved. 

I refer also to the resident fishermen. 

In southeastern Alaska this element composes a considerable portion of those 
engaged in taking salmon for the various canneries. 

That is in the large section, where 65 per cent of the traps and most 
of the other paraphernalia are operated. A large portion of the 
men who do the actual fishing are natives, and when I use the word 
"natives" in this case I not only mean the Thlinkit Indians, but I 
mean the white men who have gone there to live, perhaps 20 years 
ago, or 10 years ago, or any time. 

The past season there were many idle men in southeastern Alaska, and upon 
inquiry I learned that most of them were fishermen. Their idleness was at- 
tributable to two causes : First, they were refused employment by certain can- 
neries which preferred imported and alien labor ; and, second, because of the 
fact that they had listened to agitators and trouble makers, who did not have 
their interest at heart, but who simply desired to create trouble for the can- 
neries. 

Now, that is both sides of the question, and it is fair. I found, I 
will say, two or three canneries that would not hire that labor. On 
the other hand, I found where these men making eight or nine or 
ten dollars a day had deliberately left their paraphernalia on the 
shore, abandoned their boat, abandoned their nets, although they 
were under contract by certain canneries to catch fish, and had gone 
off into a town and there were being filled up with all sorts of false 
doctrines. Now, that is not hearsay, gentlemen. I found that condi- 
tion actually existed. I do not want to convey the impression that 
that was general, but it is just as fair for me to cite that case as to 
recite a case where a cannery refused native labor. 

Mr. Hardy. You are aware, Doctor, that you can not make a 
Utopia for a great many people, because they will not have it. 

Mr. Jones. Very true, sir. I wasn't looking for a paradise. I 
found one case which I cite here in my report, and most of you have 
read it— an incident near a town during the first large run of sockeye. 
All the white fishermen in that locality were warned that their fish 
would not be taken after they were caught. This was an unfortunate 
situation for those men, some of them with families who lived in 
Alaska, and they were compelled to sit idle and watch imported labor 
fish. On the other hand, I will cite another case, which happened at 
a time when I was at the cannery. There were 7,000 fish lying on 
the floor, and about 30 of the natives took it into their heads that they 
wanted to go off on a picnic for a week or so, and they actually had 
to be bribed to stay there in order to save the fish. Therefore you see 
that where it works one way there is just as strong argument on the 
other side. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. ' 347 

The Chairman. There is no labor question in this bill, is there? 

Mr. Jones. No. sir; but one of the arguments set forth by Judge 
Wickersham against this bill was that the local fishermen received no 
protection in this bill, and that was one of his arguments against it. 
What he said may be all right so far as he went, but he did not tell 
the other side; and' there is another side, because I saw it. 

Xow, as I traveled westward I saw the absolute impossibility of hir- 
ing native labor, because it was not there. If these canneries invest- 
ing their money depended on native labor at many of the canneries 
they would not pack hardly a salmon, because the labor is not there to 
be hired, and I think they show extremely good business judgment 
to take men up there from the States who can be depended on to make 
the pack without confusion, and at the same time be assured that they 
are going to have this help when it is needed. 

Referring now to the hatcheries, I am just as certain that proper 
artificial propagation of salmon is a sure contribution to the perpetu- 
ation of the industry as I am of the sun rising to-morrow morning. 
I am not in favor of hatcheries being located on reservations, because 
these fish come back into the stream where they were reared, and if 
the conditions or regulations prevent people from fishing in such 
streams, what good does artificial propagation do? I am absolutely 
against the ownership of hatcheries by private parties and this rebat- 
ing law that is in existence to-day. I think the Federal Government 
is amply able to conduct its own hatcheries and to do it better than 
anyone else. I hear a great deal of argument against turning fry out, 
and I, too, am absolutely opposed to this method. The Bureau of 
Fisheries, from my own observation, is, as rapidly as funds will per- 
mit, stopping this practice ; and again I refer to that point, that they 
have not had the money to retain these fry, 'which makes it necessary 
to build these large retaining ponds to hold the fish until the time 
comes when they are distributed, or when they are able to take care 
of themselves. I cite as an example the Clackamas station, in 
Oregon, which proved this essential point in the artificial propaga- 
tion of fish so forcibly, and that was the 2,000,000 Chinook salmon, 
which I saw from 2 to 4 inches long, ready to be turned into the river 
and their safety absolutely assured. I call that real fish propagation. 
At the Yes Bay hatchery, in southeastern Alaska, they are trying to 
do that. There were 750,000 salmon retained in the pond when I 
was there. They were holding them until they were near the right 
age to properly take care of themselves. 

I need not go into the matter of the private hatcheries, because I 
have already stated that I think the Government should take them 
over without delay. I do not say what they should pay, or that they 
should pay anything, but this practice of rebating I think is all 
wrong. Finally, I wish to say that I have had the pleasure of meet- 
ing a great many of the men who are interested in the fishery inter- 
ests on the west coast, and I have found them generally a substantial 
type of business man, who thinks just as much of his investments as 
a banker, railroad man, or real-estate man would think of his invest- 
ment in a bank or a railroad or in property, and who is not going 
to deliberately injure his investment any more than these men are 
going to throw away the future of the salmon industry. These gen- 
tlemen here to-day, Capt. Reynolds and Mr. Warren, are conversant 



348 ' ALASKA FISHERIES. 

with the business, the habits of the salmon, etc., and I might truth- 
fully say that there are no better authorities in the country on these 
matters. They are really helpful to the Government, both Federal 
and Territorial, in working out these problems, and their council 
should be encouraged, not discouraged. I do not believe that their 
motives are anything but broad ones, looking to the future preserva- 
tion of the salmon. This big question is theirs to settle as much as 
ours, and their presence here, in my opinion, is perfectly proper and 
their suggestions pertinent to the preservation of Alaska's great 
salmon fisheries. 

Now, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak of one other 
thing, and that is the destruction that has come to certain fisheries in 
the States. The Potomac River — I can look back a few years when 
the shad industry on that river was one of the greatest industries on 
the eastern coast, but for the past few years the majority of the 
pound-net fishermen have not made a living. That is due to nothing 
more nor less than the greed of the local resident fishermen in not 
taking care of their own resources right at their front door. If the 
United States Government could have had control of the fisheries 
on Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River they would not be in the 
condition that they are in to-day. Take the lobster industry in New 
England. I can look back to a time when one could buy lobster for 
7 or 8 cents a pound, but to-day it is worth 35 cents per pound. 
Now, that condition is due to nothing more nor less than the short- 
sightedness of the men who are taking lobsters in their own home. 
I am not condemning those fishermen, and I do not say that there 
are not exceptions to that rule, but local control is very often disas- 
trous, and if the Bureau of Fisheries could have proper support the 
fisheries of Alaska would be administered in a way satisfactory to 
Judge Wickersham, the people of Alaska, and everyone else. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. WARD T. BOWER. 

Mr. Bower. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to one of the 
sections of which Dr. Jones has spoken. At the hearing a few days 
ago, I made the suggestion that section 18 be amended to read as 
follows : 

Marine animals included. — That the catching, killing, or utilization of any- 
fish of any kind or any whale, walrus, sea lion, hair seal, or other marine 
animal, except fur seals and sea otters, not specifically provided for in this 
act, shall be subject to the provisions of tins act, but the Secretary of Com- 
merce shall have power to authorize the catching, killing, or utilization of 
any such fish or marine animal under such regulations as he may prescribe. 
So much of the act approved May 11, 190S ( 35 Stat. L., 102 ) , for the protection 
of game in Alaska, and for other purposes, as relates to walruses and sea 
lions is hereby repealed. 

Now, after further consideration of that section, and after talking 
it over with the Commissioner of Fisheries, and taking into account 
the objections which were made here the other day by Mr. Walsh, 
and in view of the discussion and remarks of Dr. Jones, we have 
come to the conclusion that it is not the most advantageous form 
for consideration by the committee. 

I would like to put in the record the further suggestion that the 
section be amended in a much simpler fashion. The title of it would 
be changed to read, "All fish and shellfish included" instead of 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 349 

" Marine animals included." The section to read, " That the catch- 
ing, killing-, or utilization of any fish or shellfish of any kind," the 
words "or shellfish' 1 being inserted in line li, and striking out of 
line 15 the words " or aquatic animal of any kind or species," and 
striking out of line 19 the word " animal" and inserting in lieu 
thereof the word "shellfish," the section then reading: 

Sec. IS. All fish and shellfish included. — That the catching, killing, or utiliza- 
tion of any fish or shellfish of any kind whatsoever not specifically provided for 
in this act shall he subject to the provisions of this act. hut the Secretary of 
Commerce shall have power to authorize the catching, killing, or utilization 
of any such fish or shel Irish under such regulations as he may prescribe. 

By this we remove all possibility of criticism heretofore voiced of 
trying to cope with the whaling situation by means of a bill which 
by its title is designed for the protection, regulation, and conserva- 
tion of the fisheries of Alaska. Moreover, it probably does away 
with a valid criticism of the suggestion I made a few days ago of 
attempting to control the walruses and sea lions of Alaska. They 
are almost exclusively outside the 3-mile limit, and, as Judge Wicker- 
sham has stated and as Dr. Jones has stated, they can only be con- 
trolled by international agreement. So I would like to correct the 
record to the extent of offering this revised section 18 for the con- 
sideration of the committee. That is all I have to offer at present. 

Mr. Wickersham. I hope the committee will not feel limited, if it 
undertakes to consider this matter, by what is in this bill. I hope it 
will consider the whole situation in Alaska, and if any of these other 
bills ought to be passed I hope they will be substituted for this one, 
or that it may be amended in such a way as to get the benefit of the 
bills which are pending before the other committees. As long as we 
are at it, let us do it right. 

The Chairman. I wish you would collect all of those bills and 
send them to us, so we will know what the}^ are. 

Mr. Wickersham. I will do that. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK M. WARREN. 

Mr. Warren. There are a few things to which I would like to call 
attention in order that they may go into the record for your con- 
sideration. When Judge Wickersham made his statement regard- 
ing this bill he seemed to have in mind three principal matters. He 
wanted equitable taxation, adequate protection, and said he feared 
monopoly. I think that this bill has all of those purposes in view 
in connection with the amendments which have been offered. It is 
our belief that the provisions of this bill will give us equitable taxa- 
tion and adequate protection. The tax which we are opposing at 
the present time and which the judge has attempted to show is a 
paltry matter is in reality, as far as we see it, a matter of consider- 
able importance in that we consider it as not equitable taxation on 
the basis that the other people in Alaska are being taxed. Mr. 
Wickersham, when he made his statement, said that he believed the 
ratio or the money which the revenue law of Alaska would raise 
was approximately one-half of 1 per cent of the net income of the 
canneries. If they had put that in the law — that the canneries were 
to be taxed one-half of 1 per cent of the net income — it would have 
been perfectly satisfactory to the canners. I want to show you what 



350 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

the amount of tax they have levied is in proportion to the gross 
business that the canneries are doing. The license law of Alaska, 
applied to the output, would raise approximately $130,000 from the 
canneries on the basis of the output of the year 1914. If that is to 
be considered as one-half of 1 per cent of the revenue, assuming they 
are to be taxed on the same basis as mines, it would mean that the 
net revenue of the canneries would be $26,000,000. I think I am 
correct in that. I want to call your attention to the statement of 

The Chairman (interposing). What are you reading from? 

Mr. Warren. I was not reading; I simply made that statement 
on the basis of some figures that I have made, showing that the 
application of the revenue law of Alaska to the salmon output 
of Alaska would have raised approximately $130,000 in 1914. I 
said if that were supposed to be considered as one-half of 1 per cent 
of the net income of the canneries, assuming that they are to be 
taxed on the same basis as mines, it would mean that the net income 
of the canneries in 1914 was $26,000,000. I would like to read from 
the report of the Bureau of Fisheries for 1914, page 36, which shows 
that the gross value of the products of the canneries of Alaska in 
1914 Avas $18,000,000, and they are taxing us now on the basis of a 
net income of $26,000,000, and they say we are being taxed on the 
same basis as mines. For that reason, and to avoid such taxation, 
we would prefer such a schedule as set forth in this bill, and we 
would request that such a schedule be adopted. Judge Wickersham 
has been quoting, I think, from the statistics of the Bureau of Fish- 
eries, and I would like to call your attention to some items that 
would probably give rise to a misunderstanding as to the actual 
valuation of property there. 

On page 35 of this report — the report of the Bureau of Fisheries 
for 1914, Document No. 819 — they set forth that the investment in 
the salmon-canning industry in 1914 was $30,830,435. That is in- 
correct to this extent: They show the values of the canneries; they 
add in the working capital, which should not be considered as tax- 
able property ; they add in the wages paid during the year, which 
should not be added in; and they also add in sailing vessels and 
other tonnage, which is taxable at home ports and does not properly 
belong in Alaska. Taking those three items from this investment in 
the salmon-canning industry in Alaska would reduce the taxable 
property by over one-half, which would be somewhere near correct. 
The value of the output in any one year is somewhere in the neigh- 
borhood of from $18,000,000 to $20,000,000, and the value of the 
fish that is taken out of Alaska is approximately from $1,250,000 to 
$1,500,000. The rest of the $18,000,000 to $20,000,000 is made up 
of the wages, the supplies, and all the other incidental expenses con- 
nected with the business, the supply part being purchased outside 
and brought in. 

In connection with the monopoly question, I would like to call 
your attention to the fact that there were in operation in 1915, ac- 
cording to the statistics of the Pacific Fisherman, from which the 
judge quoted. 86 canneries, of which the Alaska Packers' Association 
operated 14; the Northwestern Fisheries Co., 11; the Pacific-Ameri- 
can Fisheries, 3 : the Alaska-Pacific Fisheries Co., 3 ; North Alaska 
Salmon Co., 4; Columbia River Packers' Association, 2; Libby, 
McNeil & Libby, 3 ; and Deep Sea Salmon Co., 2. All the balance 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 351 

of them are operated by independent concerns. In other words, less 
than half of the canneries existing in Alaska are operated by con- 
cerns owning more than one cannery, and of those owning more 
than one, the ones which the judge classified as monopolies, the 
Alaska Packers* Association owns 14; the Northwestern Fisheries 
Co., 11 ; and Libby, McNeil & Libby, 3, a total of 28 out of 86 owned 
by what he terms a monopoly. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Northwestern belongs to the Booth Fish- 
eries Co., and they bought a lot of others. 

Mr. Warren. They bought the Gorman & Co. canneries, and that 
would add two to their holdings, which make five. I think that is 
correct. 

Mr. Wickersham. How t many has the Northwestern ? 

Mr. Warren. I said 11; the Northwestern has 11. 

The Chairman. What is that you are reading from? 

Mr. Warren. The Pacific Fisherman. That would make the 
Northwestern own 13 and the Alaska Packers' Association 11. 

Mr. Wickersham. How many does Gorman own? 

Mr. Warren. Two ; but they are included in the 13. 

Mr. Wickersham. Then there are some others. 

Mr. Warren. What others did they take over ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I read it in their statement, but I have for- 
gotten. 

Mr. Warren. I think Gorman & Co.'s canneries were the only 
ones. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Anacortes and Gorman. 

Mr. W t arren. I understand they are the same. 

Capt. Reynolds. The Gorman holdings consist of two canneries 
in Alaska and three on Puget Sound. 

Mr. Warren. Now, as to the traps that exist in Alaska. I want 
to call your attention to the report of the Bureau of Fisheries con- 
tained in this same document from which I have been reading. 
Pages 30 and 31 show the holdings of all of these companies as far 
as the traps are concerned. From the best information that I have 
at hand of their present holdings the Alaska Packers' Association 
has 33 ; the Northwestern Fisheries Co., 26 ; the Pacific American 
Fisheries Co., in the neighborhood of 20; the Alaska Pacific Fish- 
eries Co.. in the neighborhood of 22 ; the North Alaska Salmon Co., 
4 canneries and no traps; the Columbia River Packers' Association 
has approximately 15 ; Libby, McNeil & Libby, approximately 12 ; 
and the Deep Sea Salmon Co., approximately 10. Now, I do not 
offer these as absolutely accurate figures, you understand, but they 
are simply according to the information that I have had. They 
may have been changed this year slightly, but these figures repre- 
sent what they have had before. That covers considerably less than 
half of the traps in Alaska, which goes to show that by far the greater 
majority of trap locations in Alaska are owned by independent 
people. 

Mr. Wickersham. I took the figures I quoted from Mr. Cobb's 
statement. 

Mr. Warren. That showed that they were owned by independent 
people — a majority of them? 

Mr. WIckersham. No ; not at all. 



352 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Warren. Did not Mr. Cobb's statement show that the ma- 
jority were owned by independents? 

Mr. Wickersham. I judge so. 

Mr. Warren. That is what I wanted to bring out. 

Mr. Wickersham. No ; not by the independents, but by the people 
going into this combination. 

Mr. Warren. The majority of them are owned now by independ- 
ent people; even when you consider the Booth Fisheries Co., the 
Alaska Packers' Association, and the others that you talk about, the 
majority are still owned by independent people. 

Mr. Wickersham. I would have to go over them to determine 
that question. 

Mr. Warren. I simply wanted to call that to the attention of the 
committee, so that they could take it into consideration when looking 
over these figures. 

Mr. Wickersham. The figures show thej are rapidly gathering 
them all, andthat is the point I was making. 

The Chairman. Let me see if I understand. The Booth Fisheries 
Co. is the one that has gathered in other companies. Is there any 
other company that has increased its holdings? 

Mr. Warren. Libby, McNeil & Libby has increased somewhat; 
the Alaska Packers' Association has not increased any. Libby, Mc- 
Neil & Libby have gone in there during the last two years; the 
Booth Fisheries Co. has increased by taking over the Gorman hold- 
ings. I have not heard of anyone else who has increased. I might 
say, in connection with the way in which monopolies generally work 
out, and the way in which a monopoly has worked out in Alaska, 
that at the time the Alaska Packers' Association was formed we had 
an interest in a cannery at Chignik Bay; at that time the canning 
business was pretty generally considered unprofitable, but as of 
that date the Alaska Packers' Association practically covered the 
fishing business of Alaska. To-day the Alaska Packers' Association 
packs less than 25 per cent, when, at that time, they packed almost 
all of it, showing the tendency of outside people to come in. 

The Chairman. What about this question of surveys and maps of 
these trap locations? What part of the coast, where salmon fishing 
would be profitable, has not been located and maps filed by the 
parties already on the ground? 

Mr. Warren. That, Judge, would be a very hard thing to de- 
termine. I have seen in the past, when locations or when districts 
in Alaska were supposed to have been trapped or to have been 
fished by other means to the best possible advantage, and some one 
would go in there on a guess or otherwise and secure a location and 
find it to be profitable, while others would go in there and find it 
to be very unprofitable. A fishing location can not be determined 
off-hand. You can simply locate it by experiment. There are men 
who oftentimes will put in traps possibly in one location one year 
and in another location the next year and in another one the year 
following. They may try it a half dozen times before they strike a 
location that is worth something or that amounts to anything. 

The Chairman. How often do they have to be renewed? 

Mr. Warren. They take them out every year in most instances. 
I think there would be nothing left of the piling in three years on 
account of the teredo. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 353 

The Chairman. What is the teredo? 

Mr. Warren. The teredo is a marine worm that riddles the piles, 
and they will not last very long. 

Mr. Wickersham. In some cases they will only last a year. 

Mr. Warren. In some cases a year and in some cases two years. 
So far as the location itself is concerned, as I understand it, at the 
present time, the courts have construed in Alaska that a man, so long 
as he continues his location, has a prior possessory right under the 
existing law, which can continue indefinitely; but in order to hold 
that right he must fish his location every year. 

Mr. Wickersham. That only goes to this extent, Mr. Warren : The 
courts hold that he has that right as against any other individual. 

Mr. Warren. Against anyone else. 

Mr. Wickersham. But not against the Government? 

Mr. Warren. No; not against the Government. He would not 
under this bill have any right against the Government. 

Mr. Hardy. But do you not think he would have a right as against 
the Government? 

Mr. Warren. No; I do not think so, Judge. I think the attitude 
which the Government takes regarding fish is subject to regulation at 
any and all times. 

Mr. Hardy. You think that if the Government authorizes me to go 
out there and locate a piece of land and I build on that land that I 
could not under that law get any contract rights ? 

Mr. Warren. Land, I think, is different. This law provides that 
the first concern that a man must have in holding a trap location is 
his license; that is, after he has secured a trap location and secured a 
license he must renew that license as provided by law. It also states 
that after he has located he can hold his location as long as he com- 
plies with the law. Now, the law means the closed season, the dis- 
tances a-part, the licenses, and any other regulations which the Gov- 
ernment sees fit to impose; and if the Government sees fit. to change 
any regulation, that location must conform to that new law. That 
principle is generally considered to be true in the States. 

The Chairman. But it would be made absolutely plain by a provi- 
sion in the act itself. 

Mr. Warren. It can easily be made so if it is not so stated. It has 
been worked out in the States. They have changed the law in the 
State of Washington since this situation prevailed. Now, in the 
State of Washington it has not had the effect of sending the traps 
into monopolistic control. The number of Puget Sound canneries 
operating at the present time is 36, and of those 36 the Alaska Pack- 
ers' Association owns 2. That is the same monopoly that has already 
been referred to. The Anacortes Fisheries Co. owns 2, from the 
Gorman interests. I do not think there is any other interest over 
there that owns more than a single cannery. They have been operat- 
ing under this trap-location law for years. So that does not show 
that there is any tendency toward monopolistic control or any tend- 
ency for monopoly. 

Now, as to holding and controlling those locations and keeping- 
other people out, in a sense can you argue that that prevents in- 
tensive fishing? It is true that if a man holds three locations, and is 
only able to operate one, or is only obliged to operate one, that 



354 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

it is therefore to the benefit of the fish not to have the other two 
locations fished. But as a matter of fact, it does not pay anyone 
to hold a location unless it is really worth fishing, because it costs 
a good deal of money to put in a trap there, and if you are obliged 
to put in a new trap every one or two years, and you are not catching 
any fish there, it will not amount to anything and you can not 
keep it up. 

Now I want to refer briefly to another matter which the judge re- 
ferred to, touching the prices of fish. I think the document which 
I have here shows the prevailing prices since 1905. The judge stated 
in his remarks that the canners were getting as high as $14 for 48 
cans. That is $3.50 a dozen. The highest prices that have been 
received by the Alaska canneries for any grade of salmon was in the 
year 1911, when the red salmon brought $1.60 a dozen, or $6.40 for 
48 cans, and not $14. 

Mr. Wickersham. The statement that I filed with the committee 
was an official statement. 

Mr. Warren. You stated that the canners were getting as high as 
$14 for 48 cans. 

Mr. Wickersham. The statement may not have been accurate, but 
it is an official statement, and I am bound by it. 

Mr. Warren. I will leave one of these books here if you desire. I 
can not turn to the figures just now. I will show you that the prices 
set forth are solely regulated by the law of supply and demand 
and not by anything else. 

The Chairman. Now, where is that price? At San Francisco, 
Portland, or Seattle? 

Mr. Warren. It is f. o. b. coast. That is, f. o. b. common shipping 
point on the coast. 

Capt. Reynolds. There was a difference of opening prices between 
Seattle and San Francisco in 1915. 

Mr. Warren. Well, that may have been, but it is generally f. o. b. 
common shipping point. 

Mr. Hardy. What do 3 r ou mean by that expression ? 

Mr. Warren. It means where you operate to San Francisco and 
ship to other points, you could not ask any more for salmon than the 
people operating in the other localities could ask for theirs. If the 
terminal rate did not apply to the city of Portland or to the city of 
Seattle in comparison with the rate that applied to San Francisco, 
you would have to make that good. In other words, you agree to 
make it f. o. b. a common point from any other point. 

Capt. Reynolds. San Francisco enjoys a 40-cent rate. 

Mr. Warren. Yes; via the Sunset and Gulf to a New York point 
which the northern points were not able to compete with until the 
Panama Canal was opened, but now most of the shipping is being- 
withdrawn from that trade, so that they are again at a slight disad- 
vantage. The price is absolutely governed by the law of supply and 
demand. 

Mr. Hardy. You mean that is the price at San Francisco? 

Mr. Warren. San Francisco is a fair illustration, and the same 
prices prevail at Seattle and Portland. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, if you are shipping to the East you would have 
to put it a little higher? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 355 

Mr. Warren. The price itself is set by the Alaska Packers' Asso- 
ciation, according to the testimony of Mr. Alpiri, as cited by the 
judge. 

Mr. Wickersiiam. 1 es. 

Mr. Warren. As a matter of fact, it is fixed by the law of supply 
and demand; that is, it is fixed according to what they think the 
trade will pay for the quantity of fish in sight. So far as that is 
concerned, we have not always followed the practice of the Alaska 
Packers' Association in making our prices. 

Mr. Hardy. As a matter of fact, as I understand you, anybody 
who fixes prices arbitrarily alwa} 7 s fixes them by the law of supply 
and demand? 

Mr. Warren. Absolute^; and not from any monopolistic feature. 

Mr. Hardy. But does not a monopoly do the same thing? 

Mr. Warren. I suppose so. 

Mr. Hardy. Take the Standard Oil Co. or the Waters-Pierce Oil 
Co. in my State. They fix prices according to the demand. 

Mr. Warren. Exactly. 

Mr. Hardy. They fix the prices with an ample allowance for them- 
selves. 

Mr. Warren. Well, the only way in which it could affect the sal- 
mon industry would be to set a high price and reserve their supply 
for future consumption. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, the law of supply and demand, to a man who 
fixes the price of his own commodity, means fixing a price that will 
bring him the most money. 

Mr. Warren. Exactly. Now, the canners put up the product be- 
fore the market opens, before they know what they are going to get 
for it. They go up there in the early part of the season, and gen- 
erally the prices are put out along in August or September, or when* 
ever they think the} 7 knoAV what the market is going to be and what 
the market will take. 

Mr. Hardy. Just like the coffee people. 

The Chairman. How long will a canned salmon remain good? 

Mr. Warren. Judge, I ate one that had been packed 17 years and 
it was pretty good. 

The Chairman. You are alive yet, I think? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir ; I am. I do not believe there is any limit to 
the time a salmon will keep, except the possibility of the container 
rusting through and admitting air. As long as the container is 
properly taken care of it will be kept free from rust. 

Mr. Wickersiiam. Before the Committee on Fisheries of the Sen- 
ate, on January 17, 1913, at a hearing at which the committee had 
under consideration these Alaska fisheries bills, this matter of 
fixing prices was testified to quite fully by Mr. Aplin. I have his 
testimony here. I drew the conclusion from it, and I think the 
committee will draw the same conclusion, that he fixed . the prices 
arbitrarily — he and the Alaska Packers' Association together. I 
asked him these questions: 

Mr. Wicker sham. How generally were these prices which the Alaska Pack- 
ers' Association fixed accepted by the trade; I mean, by the sellers? 
.Mr. Aim. ix. With our trade; that is the only way I can answer that. 
Mr. Wickersham. Yes. 



356 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Aplin. I think we had in my office 50,000 cases of pink sold subject to 
approval of price. I think our confirmations were just under or just over a 
few hundred cases, 5,000. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is not quite what I mean, Mr. Aplin. What I meant 
was this, and I will ask you the question again: How largely did the other 
canneries accept those prices and offer their products at the same prices? 

Mr. Aplin. I think this year, generally. 

Mr. Wickersham. And who fixed the price first; your company? 

Mr. Aplin. I should say yes. 

Mr. Wickeksham. So that the price fixed by your company, being the 
largest salmon-canning company on the coast, fixed the price for all the "other 
canneries, did it not? 

Mr. Aplin. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Wicxeesham. But it was accepted? 

Mr. Alpin. In some instances, but not always. 

The Chairman. But the price it fixed was generally accepted? 

Mr. Aplin. Generally. 

Now, he did fix the price. He testified to it. Then we had him 
testify as to the amount of the different varieties of salmon, and 
he had the salmon which he fixed the high price on, and he did not 
have the salmon upon which he fixed the low price. That was the 
year he busted all the independent canneries on the Pacific coast 
by fixing a low price on their products. Now, that is my conclusion 
from his testimony. 

Mr. Warren. Well, I would not agree with you on that. When 
the Alaska packers put out that price they generally know how 
many cases of red, how many cases of pink, and how many cases of 
all other grades will probably be available, and they take into con- 
sideration how much the market will absorb. With that knowledge, 
they try to fix a price that will equalize or neutralize the law of sup- 
ply and demand. Now, we put out some salmon last year and sold 
them at a price lower than the price fixed by the Alaska Packers* 
Association, because in our estimation their price was too high. 

Capt. Reynolds. Is it not a fact that half of the packers, or many 
of the packers, refused to sell at the opening price named by the 
Alaska Packers' Association? 

Mr. Warren. I will explain that. The opening price on pinks 
was placed at 75 cents. Then there was a little flurry in the market 
and salmon broke to 65 cents. Many of the canneries confirmed at 
65 cents. The Alaska Packers' Association did not do this. It was 
done by some concerns on the sound. A considerable number of the 
canners refused to accept 65, and they held out for 75 cents. Some 
afterwards sold for 70 cents and 72£ cents. Some are still holding 
for 75 cents ; independent concerns. What the Alaska Packers' Asso- 
ciation did I do not know. I think they held for 75 cents. 

The Chairman. Of course, we will not close the hearings this 
evening. Our next meeting will be on Thursday of next week, "unless 
a special meeting is called. If somebody else wishes to appear and 
be heard on this question, they can do so at that time. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.) • 



X 



jk.:L.A.s:K:^ fishbeies 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE ON THE 
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 
First Session 

on 



H. R. 9528 



A BILL FOR THE PROTECTION, REGULATION, AND CON- 
SERVATION OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA 



PART 6 



JUNE 15, 1916 






WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1916 



COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES. 
House of Representatives. 



JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. 



RUFUS HARDY, Texas. 
MICHAEL E. BURKE, Wisconsin. 
EDWARD W. SAUNDERS, Virginia. 
PETER J. DOOLING, New York. 
HENRY BRUCKNER, New York. 
LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. 
WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. 
JAMES P. BYRNES, South Carolina. 
JESSE D. PRICE, Maryland. 
CARL C. VAN DYKE, Minnesota. 



OSCAR L. GRAY, Alabama. 
DAVID H. KINCHELOE, Kentucky. 
WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. 
ASHER C. HINDS, Maine. 
CHARLES P. CURRY, California. 
GEORGE W. EDMONDS, Pennsylvania. 
WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, Illinois. 
GEORGE A. LOUD, Michigan. 
LINDLEY H. HADLEY, Washington. 
FREDERICK W. ROWE. New York. 



T. C. Bay, Clerk. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 



House of Representatives, 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

• Thursday, June 15, 1916. 
The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joshua W. Alexander 
(chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF ME. H. C. STRONG, OF KETCHIKAN, ALASKA. 

Mr. Hardy. Mr. Strong, if there are any suggestions with refer- 
ence to this bill that you feel it right to make, we will be glad to hear 
from you. 

Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman, I have lived in Alaska for 18 years, 
and I am very much interested in the development of the country, and 
that includes the fishing industry. I am at present in the East on 
other business and did not know of the bill under discussion until 
invited to attend your hearings. 

Mr. Hardy. Have you already stated in the record what your 
interests in Alaska are ? 

Mr. Strong. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Hardy. Just state that, then, for the benefit of the committee. 

Mr. Strong. I went to Alaska as a merchant, taking a stock of 
hardware there 18 years ago. I have continued in merchandising 
in one way or another since then, but I have also branched out into 
the mining and fishing business. I became interested in the canning 
of salmon five years ago, or 1911. 

Mr. Hardy. Have you a fishery business of your own ? 

Mr. Strong. I am interested as a minority stockholder in two 
canneries. 

Mr. Hardy. What is the extent of those canneries? How much 
material do they put up annually, or how much fish product do they 
put up ? 

Mr. Strong. The two plants have a capacity of about 90,000 cases. 

Mr. Hardy. Where are they located ? 

Mr. Strong. One is at Sunny Point, and one at Ketchikan. 
Previous to this year I was interested in the Alaska Fish Co., and they 
operated a plant on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island. 

Mr. Hardy. Is that in southeast Alaska? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; not far from Ketchikan. My interest in the 
Alaska Fish Co. was disposed of this spring, and I have reinvested 
in the plant at Ketchikan. However, my interest in fishing is 
secondary to my other interests in the country. 

Mr. Hardy. Do you mean secondary to your mining interests and 
mercantile interests ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; my mining interests are heavier than my 
fishing interests. 

357 



358 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Hardy. Where is your actual residence ? 

Mr. Strong. At Ketchikan. 

Mr. Hardy. What is the value of your fishery plants — -the two 
that you are interested in ? What are those plants worth ? 

Mr. Strong. The plants alone — that is, the buildings and ma- 
chinery, I do not suppose are worth over $20,000, surely not to ex- 
ceed $30,000. 

Mr. Greene. How is that taxed? Are the buildings and ma- 
chinery taxed by the Territory? 

Mr. Strong. There has been no tax on them except inside the 
corporate limits of the town. At Ketchikan the town or city govern- 
ment assesses all of the property. 

Mr. Greene. There is no Territorial tax ? Is there no tax levied by 
the Territory ? 

Mr. Strong. There is a tax on the pack, but not on the plant. 

Mr. Greene. Not on 'the value of the buildings and land? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. Is there any Federal tax on the plant ? 

Mr. Strong. Only on the pack. 

Mr. Curry. You are taxed the same as the other fisheries? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Curry. Are you connected with the so-called Fish Trust up 
there, or are you running an independent fishery or cannery ? 

Mr. Strong. I do not see how we could be more independent. 

Mr. Curry. That is what we want to know here, whether you are 
coming here and speaking for yourself individually, or whether you 
are coming here for the Booth people and others. Are you connected 
with the Booth Fisheries Co. ? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir; in no way whatever. 

Mr. Curry. You are an independent? 

Mr. Strong. Entirely independent. 

Mr. Curry. What is your judgment as to the best method of taxing 
these Alaska fisheries, and what is the best method for their control? 
Do you think the control of the fisheries should be in the hands of the 
United States Government or in the hands of the Alaska Territorial 
government ? 

Mr. Strong. I believed the tax assessment on the fisheries should 
be made against the pack, that assessment covering all liability for 
taxes. 

Mr. Curry. Should that be done by the Government of Alaska or 
by the Government of the United States? 

Mr. Strong. I think it should be done by the Federal Government. 

Mr. Greene. As to the receipts from these taxes, what disposition 
would you have made of the money going into the Federal Treasury ? 

Mr. Strong. I believe that the fish industry should be held respon- 
sible for the continuance of the business — that is, for the maintenance 
of the supply of fish, and the expenses the Federal Government goes 
to in maintaining that supply of fish. 

Mr. Hadley,. Do you mean by that that these fisheries should pay 
a sufficient tax to constitute a fund for the protection and main- 
tenance of the fish ? 

Mr. Strong. That is it exactly, and in addition to that they should 
pay a just proportion of the expense of the maintenance of the District 
of Alaska. They should pay in proportion with the other interests in 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 359 

the District and no more. At the present time, I would say, offhand, 
that the fish industry has been taxed to the extent of close to 50 per 
cent of all the taxes collected in the district. 

Mr. Curry. Do you mean to say that 50 per cent of the taxes paid 
for the government in Alaska is derived from the fishery interests ? 

Mr. Strong. I believe so. I would not want to state that posi- 
tively, but that is my impression. 

Mr. Curry. $166,000 went into the Alaskan fund last year from 
the fisheries. Now, is that one-half of all the taxes collected and spent 
in the Territory of Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. I believe that is close to 50 per cent of the total taxes 
collected from the industries in the district of Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. You do not think the fisheries are taxed too much 
now, do you ? 

Mr. Strong. I think they are taxed out of proportion with the 
other resources of the country. 

Mr. Curry. Do you think that 4 cents per case is too much for the 
fisheries to pay as a tax? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; on certain grades. 

Mr. Curry. Don't you think that any tax is too much ? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir; indeed. 

Mr. Curry. It seems that 4 cents per case is a very reasonable tax. 

Mr. wStrong. I never shirk taxes on any ol my own property in 
Ketchikan, although a considerable portion of it is tide land and had 
been exempt from taxation until a year ago. I have paid my taxes 
every year, although I could have been exempted on the property 
located on the tide lands. I consider it my duty to pay my propor- 
tion of the taxes. 

Mr. Greene. As I understand it, the collection of these taxes, as 
provided for in this bill, would be an expensive proposition. Is not 
that business considerably scattered, so as to require a considerable 
amount of travel in collecting the taxes ? 

Mr. Strong. It would, and it would be very unsatisfactory. In 
fact, I do not believe that you could get a just assessment and collect 
it in a way that would be businesslike at all. 

Mr. Greene. That is, under this bill ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; under this bill. I do feel that one tax 
should be levied against the pack, which would cover the tax you 
now propose on the raw fish, the canned products, and the shore 
plant. 

Mr. Greene. What I want to get at is this: While this plan might 
turn in a certain amount of money, yet, is not the bill so cumber- 
some in its provisions as to also cause a great deal of expense, so 
that, on the basis of this bill, the real result would not be commen- 
surate with the expense ? 

Mr. Strong. I believe you are right. 

Mr. Bower. On what do you base that belief ? 

Mr. Strong. On my experience in Alaska, in dealing with condi- 
tions there. Some of the properties are, perhaps, hundreds of miles 
away from any settled community. 

Mr. Hadley. What you are really speaking of is the collection of 
the tax on the gear of the fisheries ? 

Mr. Strong. On the whole thing, including the gear, fish, and 
shore property. I believe it should all be covered in one tax. 



360 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Greene. What is your idea with reference to taxing the 
natives or Eskimo and Indians and that class of people ? 

Mr. Strong. I do not believe that any direct tax should be levied 
against them, but I do think it is right that the fish caught by them 
should pay the same tax paid by fish caught by white men. 

Mr. Greene. But the native personally should not be subject to 
any tax ? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir. 

Mr. Greene. If, under the provisions of this bill, these people are 
to be taxed, they would have to travel quite a ways to get licenses 
and to make provision for paying the taxes? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Greene. And it would subject them to a large expense, would 
it not, on account of their modes of travel ? 

Mr. Strong. There are two sides to that question, but I think it 
would be unnecessary expense. 

Mr. Greene. I would like to get both sides of the question. 

Mr. Strong. I think there would be a lot of satisfaction having a 
record of some sort with each fishing crew, which could be secured 
through obliging them to take out an annual license, but I doubt if 
it would be practicable. 

Mr. Hardy. As I understand it, you rather oppose the idea of a 
license tax upon fish gear? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. I think, though, that it would be practical 
to place a license on traps, because they are fixed, but not just unless 
other modes of fishing are taxed. 

Mr. Hardy. They are big enough to bear the expense of procuring 
the license? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; and if they are not, they should not be in 
existence. 

Mr. Hardy. But you think that a license upon the minor gear 
should not be levied? In fact, your opinion is that the whole tax 
should be on the pack, or the output of the canneries, is it not ? 

Mr. Strong. That is the idea. 

Mr. Hardy. And tax nothing else connected with the fisheries ? 

Mr. Strong. Tax nothing else. 

Mr. Lazaro. You spoke of taxes on the fishing industry, mines, 
and other interests, and then you went on to say that the tax on the 
fishing interest was too high. 

Mr. Strong. I did. 

Mr. Lazaro. Don't you think that the tax on the others is a little 
low? 

Mr. Strong. I believe that the resources of Alaska can well afford 
to pay the expenses of our local government. We have a wonder- 
fully rich country, and there would be no trouble at all in getting 
the revenue necessary to meet the expenses af the government, but 
I can not see the need of putting the burden on one industry. 

Mr. Lazaro. Coming back to the mining interest, how about the 
mining industry ? 

Mr. Strong. Well, I might say that I have invested more in min- 
ing and have drawn more out of mining than I. have out of fisheries, 
but the taxes have been insignificant. 

Mr. Lazaro. On the mining industry? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 361 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. On the little plant at Sunny Point I believe 
we paid in excess of $2,000 last year in the way of taxes. 

Mr. Hardy. Is that a fishery plant or mining plant? 

Mr. Strong. That is a fishery plant, and the total value of the 
raw fish which came from there could not have exceeded $20,000 to 
$25,000. 

Mr. Hardy. That was the total value of the product ? 

Mr. Strong. Not of the manufactured product. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, what was the total value of the manufactured 
product ? 

Mr. Strong. The cost of the manufactured product in the way of 
cans, boxes, freight charges, labor, and various expenses incidental 
to the business, exclusive of raw fish, would aggregate $2 per case, and 
a large proportion of the 1915 pink salmon, which is 90 per cent of our 
total pack, sold at $2.60 per case, delivered in Seattle. 

Mr. Hardy. What does that $2 cover? You say that you paid $2 
per case for freight and other expenses; do you mean by that the 
expense of taking the raw product and getting it into a marketable 
condition ? 

Mr. Strong. That is the expense we are put to exclusive of fishing. 

Mr. Hadley. You mean that $2 per case is the cost of production — 
is that what you mean ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. At that price of $2.60 per case there is prac- 
tically no profit left. Some of the plants figure their cost at 60 cents 
per dozen cans of pink salmon, and that is really the only kind we are 
interested in in our part of the country, because we have a very small 
percentage of red fish. 

Mr. Hadley. It is larger, of course, in the case of red fish ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. What I was trying to do was to get you to give us 
the elements making up the cost of $2 per case. You mentioned $2 
per case as the cost of preparing this product for market; now, what 
are the elements of that cost ? 

Mr. Strong. In the first place, our cans and cases cost approx- 
imately $1 per case. Our freight, wharfage, and warehouse charges 
on pack and material to and from Alaska will exceed 35 cents per 
case. The transportation of men, their wages for the season, includ- 
ing board, fuel, and other necessary supplies, taxes, insurance, and 
commissions on sale of pack will equal 65 cents per case. 

Mr. Curry. Does it include the lumber used in the boxes ? 

Mr. Strong. That is included in the cost of the cans at $1 per case. 

Mr. Hadley. Do you include in that the cans that are lost? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir; and there is a considerable loss in that way. 

Mr. Hardy. Does that $2 cover all of the cost you are out, except 
the cost or price you pay for the raw product brought to the can- 
neries ? 

Mr. Strong. Two dollars is a very conservative statement of the 
cost — that is, it is under the real cost. 

Mr. Hardy. Now then, what do you pay for the raw product, 
when you buy it from anybody except your own employees or your 
own laborers ? If a fish catch comes to your factory, what do you 
pay for the fish? 

Mr. Strong. At our plant we have paid If cents for pink salmon. 

Mr. Hardy. One and three-quarter cents for what ? 



362 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Strong. For pink salmon, and 2| for keto. 

Mr. Hardy. Is that per pound or per can ? 

Mr. Strong. That is per fish. We pay 15 cents for sockeye salmon. 

Mr. Hardy. What is the average weight of the fish ? 

Mr. Strong. In the case of pink salmon, it takes on an average of 
17 or 18 fish for a case, and a case weighs 48 pounds, so that we will be 
getting approximately 3 pounds out of each fish. 

Mr. Hardy. So that, when you buy fish now, it costs you If cents 
for 3 pounds and — what is the highest price ? 

Mr. Strong. Fifteen cents. 

Mr. Hardy. That is for a big fish, is it not ? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir; not a big fish, but a higher grade fish. 

Mr. Hadley. How many reds do you have to the case ? 

Mr. Strong. About 12. 

Mr. Hadley. And about 17 or 18 pinks? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. What I am trying to get at is the cost of this case you 
sell for $2.60. What do the fish cost you when you buy them from 
fishermen ? 

Mr. Strong. Approximately, about 30 cents per case for pink 
salmon. 

Mr. Hardy. So it costs you about three-quarters of a cent per 
pound, and there are 48 pounds to the case % 

Mr. Strong. There are 48 pounds to the case. 

Mr. Hardy. And it costs you about 30 cents ? 

Mr. Strong. Approximately. 

Mr. Hardy. Or a little less than three-quarters of a cent per 
pound ? . 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. That is what the fishermen get out of the fish ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; that is what the fishermen get out of the 
fish, but that is not the entire cost to the cannery. 

Mr. Hardy. And the rest of your cost is made up by the labor 
that goes into putting it up, the freight or transportation charge 
on the cans there and the product back again to market, and the 
fare of your employees that you bring from the States, and, I sup- 
pose, the maintenance of them while you have them there, and their 
wages ? 

Mr. Hadley. And the cost of the material? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; there are other items 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). Is it very desirable that that section of 
the country that is the home of these fisheries should have a perma- 
nent population from which, to a large extent, at least, your labor 
supply for the catching of these fish could be drawn ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; it would lessen the cost of production. 

Mr. Hardy. As it is now, you very largely have to transport from 
Seattle and other places the labor that goes into the catching of the 
fish, as well as into the packing and canning of them ? 

Mr. Strong. We do, and have to pay the cannery crew for a long 
season. If there were, a larger population in the country we would 
only pay for the labor while it was occupied. 

Mr. Hardy. The industry, then, is greatly interested in building 
up the population of Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 363 

Mr. Hardy. Not only for the benefit of that industry, but for every 
other industry? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. That is true so far as southeastern Alaska 
is concerned. 1 can not speak of conditions in western Alaska and 
around Bristol Bay. 

Mr. Hardy. Do you Know anything about the conditions in the 
Aleutian Islands '. 

Mr. Strong. No, sir. 

Mi'. Curry. Can you tell me what those fishermen would do in 
order to make a living, outside of the six weeks or two months when 
the salmon are running % 

Mr. Strong. In southeastern Alaska there are various things that 
one could do. It is a brand new country, and there are chances in 
logging. Mining is on the increase, and there is a good demand at 
the present time for miners. 

Mr. Curry. What would you do with the miner and logger in that 
business ? Would you take the axe out of the hands of the logger 
and the pick out of the hands of the miner and put oars in their hands 
and send them out on a rough sea? Do you think that a miner or 
logger could be drafted to go out on that sea, which is the roughest 
water on earth ? Or do you think you could get a sailor or fisherman 
to let go their oar on the boat or place on the gasoline launch and go 
into a mining camp with a pick? Would you employ fishermen in 
your mine if you could get miners? That is a very nice theory to 
talk about, but what could the fishermen do ? You must find some- 
thing for the fishermen to do while they are not engaged in fishing. 

Mr. Strong. You speak of their following other occupation, but 
there is a chance for them to follow fishing the year through. There 
is no place in the American possessions where they can follow fishing 
the year through, in all classes of weather, 12 months in the year to 
better advantage than in Alaska. 

Mr. Curry^. You have nice pleasant weather there in the winter- 
time to go fishing. 

Mr. Strong. Now, you understand that I am speaking of south- 
eastern Alaska. I have stated before that these conditions did not 
apply to Bristol Bay and western Alaska. 

Mr. Hadley. It is only during a limited time that they can go 
into western Alaska at all. 

Mr. Strong. Surely. It is only for a limited period of time that 
they can get in there at all, and the only practical way of handling 
the business there, I think, is to carry the men with you and bring 
them back at the close of the fishing season. 

Mr. Curry. You are only talking about the lower part of the Pan- 
handle, in the lower part of Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; where approximately two-thirds of the 
fisheries are located, and the catching of halibut, herring, and other 
fish is followed throughout the entire year. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is it not true that the fishermen five all the 
year around in the vicinity of the cod banks of Shumagin Island ? 

Mr. Strong. I do not believe there are very many of them. Of 
course there are a good many natives in that part of the country who 
are engaged in fishing. 

Mr. Wickersham. And they do a fishing trade out there for a very 
much longer period than is covered by the salmon trade ? 



364 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; but it is so small as compared with the 
salmon industry 

Mr. Wickersham (interposing). But there are enormous quantities 
of fish there that can be used — cod and other fish ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; fish of all grades which they have not yet 
attempted to get at. 

Mr. Wickersham. And as far out as Kodiak Island and Shumagin 
there is a permanent population and always has been as far out as 
Unalaska ? 

Mr. Strong. I know there are settlements of natives in there, but 
I do not know anything about the conditions. I have never been 
there. My time has been spent in southeastern Alaska. 

Mr. Hadley. Do you feel confident of your statement that two- 
thirds of the pack is produced in southeastern Alaska, or even 
approximately that? 

Mr. Strong. I think so, approximately. The Panhandle of Alaska, 
I believe, produces approximately two-thirds of the pack. 

Mr. Hadley. Nearly all of the red fish are produced in western 
Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. And there is very little of it down there 1 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. The bulk or the great value of the output in Alaska 
is produced outside of the district you speak of, and the great value 
is in red fish, is it not ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. I say that the big valuation that comes out of Alaska 
is produced in that outlying territory where they can only operate 
within a limited period of time during the year. 

Mr. Strong. That is true. 

Mr. Bower. I think that Mr. Strong is somewhat mistaken in his 
statement that two-thirds of the fish product comes from southeast- 
ern Alaska. The statistics show nearer one-third. 

Mr. Hadley. That is the reason I asked that question, because I 
wanted to direct Mr. Strong's attention to it. 

Mr. Strong. You know that sometimes we think everything centers 
around ourselves. I had an idea that the greater proportion of sal- 
mon from Alaska were packed in southeastern Alaska. 

Mr. Hardy. Let me understand whether Mr. Bower means all the 
fishing industries or the salmon fisheries. His particular reference 
was to salmon. 

Mr. Bower. I had in mind the salmon fisheries. 

Mr. Hardy. And you think about one-third of it is in southeastern 
Alaska. 

Mr. Bower. Approximately, in round figures, the value of the pack. 

Mr. Strong. Oh, of course, that is different. I was figuring on the 
cases and he was figuring in dollars, and it takes two cases of pink 
salmon to equal one case case of red in value. 

Mr. Curry. I read in the Pacific Fisherman some time ago that the 
cost of the raw fish, the price paid for the raw fish in Alaska, was one 
million and a quarter dollars for one year's output. That included 
all fish taken, salmon, halibut, and everything else. It was stated 
that that fish was sold wholesale for about $20,000,000, and that the 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 365 

profits of the output were about $3,000,000. I do not know whether 
that is true or not. 

Mr. Wickersham. Let me suggest to Mr. Curry that a tax is not 
levied upon a part of the value of the property; it is levied upon all 
of it. Take, for instance, the stock in trade of our merchants up 
there which they buy in the States and take up there. It is taxed at 
true value, although they have to pay a large sum of money to bring 
it up there. 

Mr. Curry. I was not talking about taxes. I was talking about the 
value of the fish. I understood that the value of the raw fish is a 
million and a quarter dollars ; that after being treated and packed in 
cans, salted and sent away, including all expenses, etc., that it was 
sold for $20,000,000, and all of the profit, deducting, I presume, 
taxation and everything else, was $3,000,000. Whether that is true 
or not, I do not know. 

Mr. Hardy. I call your attention to what Mr. Strong said about 
the price paid for the raw product. He figured it at 30 cents on a 
48-pound case, which would be three-quarters of a cent a pound, and 
then the sale of the case would bring $2.60, so that what cost 30 cents 
would sell for $2.60, or nearly ten times as much. 

Mr. Curry. Oh, no; not at all. To the cost of the fish you have 
got to add the cost of labor, the cans, and everything of that kind. 

Mr. Hardy. Oh, yes; excuse me. You were speaking about the 
price of the raw material ? 

Mr. Curky. Yes. 

Mr. Hardy. So that what cost 30 cents in raw fish sells for $2.60, 
but that does not cover the entire cost? 

Mr. Curry. Oh, no, sir. What I was trying to get at was whether 
it did cost, including fish, labor, and freight, $17,000,000 for what was 
sold for $20,000,000 wholesale. 

Mr. Hardy. That is what I was trying to figure on. According 
to Mr. Strong's statement, what cost 30 cents in raw fish was sold 
to the consumer at $2.60. Of course, that could not be correct, 
according to your estimate. 

Mr. Hadley. I understand that Mr. Strong's statement is based 
on pink fish and Mr. Curry's statement is based on the Alaska output, 
and the elements which enter into Mr. Curry's statement are quite 
different from those which enter into Mr. Strong's statement. I 
make that remark in order to clear up the record, because the record 
is rather ambiguous. 

Mr. Hardy. Mr. Curry was only stating what he saw in the news- 
paper, and I was trying to align it to Mr. Strong's statement. 

Mr. Hadley. That is right, is it not, Mr. Strong, that your 
statement as to the $2.60 and the figures of what would enter into 
the cost of production were based on the pink fish ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. Is that the cheapest fish in Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. No; the keta is the cheapest grade of fish in Alaska. 
The pink salmon is known locally as the humpback salmon. 

Mr. Hadley. I asked you a while ago about the red fish, as to 
whether or not the red fish were the fish of largest value in Alaska, 
and you stated that they were. 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 



366 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Curry. What is Alaska's largest output aside from the fish 
business ? 

Mr. Strong. Alaska supplies practically nothing but the raw fish. 
The: cost of the raw fish is distributed among as much of the help as can 
be obtained in Alaska. 

Mr. Curry. How long do these tins and other things remain in 
Alaska in which the fish are packed ? 

Mr. Strong. If we are fortunate and have a successful season, it 
remains there but a short time. In fact, we have canneries at Ketch- 
ikan with very little warehouse space. In some instances we re- 
ceive the cans to-day and to-morrow they are filled with fish and 
shipped on the first steamer back to the States. Of course there are 
but few canneries in Alaska so favorably situated. We have good 
transportation facilities there, and it makes it possible for one boat 
to bring in the cans and the next boat to take out the product. 

Mr. Curry. Do the cans and boxes come in already made or do you 
fix them up after you get them ? 

Mr. Strong. At these particular canneries they come in already 
made. 

Mr. Curry. All you do is to put the fish in cans and see that they 
are nailed up in boxes, and put them on the steamer and see that they 
are taken out ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. The raw product at those canneries costs 
about 30 cents per case. Now, there is an additional cost to the can- 
ners above that. That is what is paid to the fishermen. . The can- 
nery men are obliged to furnish gear. In some cases they furnish 
boats to the fishermen. That is an added cost. 

Mr. Hadley. If the fisherman does not do it, the cannery man 
furnishes it himself ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes; or he can put in his own trap and catch the fish 
himself. 

Mr. Hadley. In that case he furnishes his own crew ? 

Mr. Strong. In that case he furnishes his own crew, and handles the 
whole proposition. My experience with traps has been that if I could 
buy fish of equal quality delivered at the cannery at a stated price or 
at the estimate that I have given here, I would not take the risk of 
putting in traps, because they are frequently taken out by storms. 

Mr. Curry. The reason for that is that it would cost ten or twenty 
thousand dollars to put in a trap, and a big storm is liable to come 
along and sweep it away ? 

Mr. Strong. There are traps that cost as high as that, but I have 
not invested in places requiring so heavy construction. However, 
the traps located in exposed positions seem to be the more successful 
in taking the fish so long as the trap is in operation. 

Mr. Hardy. I would like to ask you if there are any headquarters 
for the fixing of your prices in putting your product on the market. 
In what way do you go about determining what you will ask and 
how the price of your product is determined in Seattle or at the 
terminal points you speak of ? 

Mr. Strong. That depends entirely on supply and demand and 
business ability in selling. We have had experience ourselves, and 
sometimes we are pleased and sometimes displeased with bargains 
we have closed at earlier dates. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 367 

Mr. Hardy. Do you find any effort to control that price by any 
organization or combination ? 

Mr. Strong. I have never found anything of that kind. In fact, 
we are selling our salmon independent. Last year we sold in the 
spring a portion of the pack that we had expected to put up. 

Mr. Hardy. You contracted it in advance ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; and sold it to reliable dealers in the East 
at a price that was mutually satisfactory. 

Mr. Hardy. You sold through dealers in the East? Were those 
dealers representatives of any other institutions except purchasers ? 

Mr. Strong. In no way whatsoever. 

Mr. Edmonds. Were they commission houses ? 

Mr. Strong. Sometimes they were commission houses, and in 
some instances they were wholesale grocery houses. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, what I wanted to get at is this: If this bill 
should provide means by which an aggregation of capital could secure 
an unlimited number of fish sites and fish traps just as far as their 
means and their energy enabled them to do so, do you think it is 
possible for them to monopolize the industry and to govern the price 
at which the product should be sold at their will ? 

Mr. Strong. If they attempted it, it would be a colossal failure, 
for the reason that the small companies or small operators, which are 
in many instances locally owned 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). What do you mean by locally owned? 

Mr. wStrong. Owned in Alaska, as many canneries are, in the vi- 
cinity of our home, Ketchikan, Alaska — I believe we could pack 
salmon for 10 cents a dozen less than the larger corporations. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, right there. If you can pack salmon for 10 
cents less per dozen than the larger corporations what facilities have 
you to cheapen the cost of your output over and above them ? 

Mr. Strong. Personal attention to business is the great item. 

Mr. Hardy. Have you not also this condition in your favor, that 
you have the labor there that you get on the ground, instead of sending 
off for it? 

Mr. Strong. We always employ local labor as far as possible, 
although we have to bring in considerable help. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, as far as you are able to employ local labor that 
is an advantage that you have, is it not ? 

Mr. Strong. It is. That saves transportation charges. 

Mr. Hardy. And the local concerns there utilize nearly all the 
local labor, as conditions now are ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. So that these larger concerns would have to bring 
their labor with them? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; they would be forced to do so. 

Mr. Hardy. In that way you have a considerable advantage? 

Mr. Wickersham. You have an advantage from the standpoint 
of transportation ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edmonds. Where do they get this labor from that they bring in ? 

Mr. Strong. From their headquarters, Seattle, Portland, and 
Astoria. 

Mr. Edmunds. What kind of labor do they bring in? 



368 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Strong. Chinese is preferable, but it is impossible to get suffi- 
cient Chinese help. 

Mr. Edmunds. What do they bring in besides Chinese ? 

Mr. Strong. Whatever is obtainable. 

Mr. Hadley. The Chinese are used in the canneries ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. They do not do any of the fishing, do they? 

Mr. Strong. In no way at all. They just do the inside work. 

Mr. Hadley. I just want to get that clear on the record. 

Mr. Curry. There is an Alaska fishermen's union, composed 
entirely of white men, and they go up there every year. 

Mr. Hardy. Are those Chinamen citizens or inhabitants of the 
United States and therefore permitted to do that work under the law, 
or are they imported Chinese labor? 

Mr. Strong. Oh, no; not imported. They are all residents of 
Seattle, Portland, or San trancisco. When I say Chinese, I mention 
them first for the reason that they are more expert in cannery work. 
It is impossible to get a sufficient supply to do the cannery work. 

Mr. Hardy. When you speak of using local labor for yourselves, 
do you use that local labor in cannery work alone, or do you depend 
on other labor for cannery work? 

Mr. Strong. We have had a few Chinese. 

Mr. Hardy. If there is any way of increasing the local population, 
will not that industry be more and more for the benefit of American 
citizenship ? 

Mr. Strong. It is; and it is growing more so. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, you interested me awhile ago — said that an 
attempt to monopolize this industry would be a colossal failure, or a 
colossal thing. If the big capitalists could secure control of transpor- 
tation facilities; if they had their own facilities and you had none; if 
you were waiting on them to be served by your competitors in the 
business, do you not think you would have rather a hard row to 
weed ? 

Mr. Strong. I think that is impossible. There are now so many 
transportation companies in the field, and in addition to that, a can- 
nery could arrange to get a vessel, a barge, or a ship to handle their 
own supplies. 

Mr. Edmonds. You not only have American merchant steamers 
but you have Canadian steamers at Ketchikan ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. At Ketchikan we average at least one 
steamer a day during the canning season. 

Mr. Britton. Do you know how many competitive companies 
there are operating in the salmdn industry in Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. A great many. 

Mr. Britton. Approximately how many? 

Mr. Strong. Why, 50, 1 should say. 

Mr. Britton. They are all independent of each other? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edmonds. Is there any canning company in Alaska that you 
know of that does not supply nets to the natives when they are 
fishing, or to the fishermen? Is it not the custom up there for all 
companies to supply nets to the fishermen ? 

Mr. Strong. Practically so. 

Mr. Edmonds. And they also repair the nets? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 369 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. A cannery is responsible for the net in 
every way. Of course, a fisherman is supposed to use reasonable 
care, although I have frequently seen brand new gear, a seine for 
instance, go out which would cost $700, and come back at the close 
of the season ruined, practically worthless. As a rule, it is the crew 
catching the fewer fish which bring the gear back in worse condition; 
hence their fish are very expensive. 

Mr. Curry. Do they charge these crews for the gear lent them, or 
do they supply them and then pay them for their catch ? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir. Some canneries charge them one-quarter of 
a cent per fish. For instance, they will pay them 1^ cents for fish 
caught with the cannery gear or If cents for fish caught with private 
gear. 

Mr. Curry. Those Chinamen that are used up there are used 
almost exclusively in the canneries, are they not ? 

Mr. Strong. They are not used outside of the canneries in any 
way. 

Mr. Curry. A great many of the people that are employed in the 
canneries are white people and Indians, are they not ? 

Mr. Strong. They are so far as they can be had. 

Mr. Curry. According to the pictures in this book prepared by 
Dr. Jones a great many of the canneries used Indians and some 
whites. 

Mr. Strong. All of the natives to be had are employed in some 
way in connection with the fisheries, either in the canneries or in 
fishing outside. 

Mr. Bower. About 4,000 were Indians, out of the total of 16,000 
employed in the salmon fisheries in 1914. 

The Chairman. How many Chinese and Japanese were employed ? 

Mr. Bower. In that year the exact number of Chinese employed 
was 2,136, and the number of Japanese employed was 2,128. Then 
there was a miscellaneous listing of approximately 2,300, which in- 
cluded Filipinos, Porto Ricans, negroes, Mexicans, and others. The 
total number of white people employed in the salmon canneries in 
that year was 6,832. The figures I have given relate specifically to 
the salmon-canning industry. 

Mr. Edmonds. Five or six years ago when I was up there I did not 
see many white people employed in them. 

Mr. Hardy. Mr. Bower, were those people employed inside the 
canneries ? 

Mr. Bower. That is the total number of persons employed inside 
and outside, but, as has been stated here, all of the Chinese are en- 
gaged in inside work. They are never used in fishing. 

Mr. Hardy. Were those 4,000 natives employed in canning fish, 
or in all branches of the work ? 

Mr. Bower. They were engaged in all branches of the work. In 
southeastern Alaska the men are employed, as a rule, in fishing, 
while the Indian women and children are employed inside the can- 
neries. 

Mr. Hardy. The statement was made that when you got inside 
the canneries, you saw very few white people there ? 

Mr. Bower. So far as some of the independent canneries in south- 
eastern Alaska are concerned, I am certain that comparatively few 
white people are employed inside the canneries. The canneries are 



370 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

able to give this employment to the natives and it affords them a 
definite source of income. It is of great benefit to them. 

Mr. Edmonds. The natives up there get on to this source of income, 
and some of them come one or two hundred miles to the canneries. 
I saw very few white people in the canneries. 

Mr. Bower. What I have said applies to southeastern Alaska. 
In western Alaska, in the Bristol Bay district, where approximately 
one-third of the salmon pack is produced, there are practically no 
natives, and it is absolutely necessary for the companies engaged in 
the business to bring their employees from the States. Alaska can 
not produce the labor required there. There are no whites resident 
in that country beyond a few scattering ones, and so long as the 
industry continues in its present condition, it is necessary to import 
the labor that is needed in the western district; but in southeastern 
Alaska, let me reiterate, a considerable proportion of the labor is 
local, both inside and outside the canneries. 

Mr. Strong. I wish to state that at Ketchikan the conditions have 
changed very materially in the last five or six years. The supply of 
native help is not increasing; in fact, I believe it is on the decease. 
They are not there to be had. Then, the canning business is growing, 
and as it grows, an additional amount of white help is employed. 
But there are features of the canning business that do not appeal 
to whites. It would be impossible to get them to do certain classes 
of the work, and we are now paying Chinamen fancy wages to do cer- 
tain work. There are Chinamen to whom we are paying $500 for a 
short season's work, and we are paying their expenses from Portland, 
Oreg., or San Francisco, to Alaska, their board, and the expense of 
returning them home at the close of the canning season, in addition 
to the wages mentioned. 

Mr. Hardy. Over and above those expenses ? 

Mr. Strong. Over and above those expenses. We would not do 
that if there was other competent help to be had. 

Mr. Hardy. What proportion of the work is done by the local 
Indians and whites ? 

Mr. Strong. At Ketchikan there is one plant which had six or 
eight Chinamen, and the balance of the crew, which was, roughly 
speaking about 40, were whites, and of those 50 per cent were univer- 
sity boys from the universities of Oregon and Washington. They 
came up there to work during the summer. 

The Chairman. To make money to go to school on? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; and at our little cannery in Ketchikan we 
expect to do the same thing this je?a\ 

Mr. Edmonds. Is there any agreement in any particular locality 
or center where there is a number of canneries covering the price 
to be paid for fish purchased from the natives, or does each one of the 
canneries set its own price? 

Mr. Strong. I have not known of any agreement. In our locality 
we are getting an increased proportion of the fish from the traps. We 
have had so much trouble in delivering at our c&nnery desirable fish 
from the seines thrt we have relied upon our traps as far as possible. 

Mr. ] dmonds. You say you supply the men with gear. !Now, when 
you give the fisherman a seine, he is naturally supposed to bring the 
fish to your cannery ' 

Mr. Strong. He is supposed to do so. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 371 

Mr. Edmonds. And the presumption is that in most cases he does 
do so. Now, does that give you any hold on him so far as the price 
you pay for the fish is concerned 1 Can you set the price, making it 
lower or higher, as you may desire, or do you have one price for all 
the canneries ? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir; in our part of the country it depends on the 
location of the cannery, how near the plant is to favorable fishing 
grounds, etc. There is no agreement in that way. 

Mr. Edmonds. You have an agreement with him when you furnish 
the gear that you will give him so much for the fish ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; and sometimes we tell him where he must 
fish — that is, that he can not go. beyond a certain distance from the 
cannery. There are many conditions that have to be considered. 

Mr. Edmonds. You have competing canneries at Ketchikan ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; all around. 

Mr. Edmonds. You do not compete with each other in the pur- 
chase of fish from fishermen, do you ? You all pay the same price, do 
you not ? 

Mr. Strong. I have known of canneries going to the crews that 
were sent out by competing plants and offering a bonus to get their 
fish. There is all sorts of competition and some ruinous competition. 

Mr. Edmonds. But you really supply the net because you think the 
man will bring all of the fish to you ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edmonds. And, of course, if he gets a nice "bog sockeye" 
that he can hide among the barrels on the boat and sell to some other 
cannery at a better price, I suppose he does it generally ? 

Mr. Strong. Those conditions are helping to make the trap more 
favorable. 

Mr. Edmonds. Do not the English canneries pay better prices in 
British Columbia than you pay for fish ? 

Mr. Strong. I think not, but I do not know positively. 

Mr. Edmonds. How about Essington, and down that way ? Don't 
they pay more ? 

Mr. Strong. Two or three years ago I was talking with a canner 
from there, and they were not paying as much at that time. I do 
not know as to the present conditions. 

Mr. Hadley. Do you have a plant that supplies box shooks ? 

Mr. Strong. There is one at Ketchikan. 

Mr. Hadley. Do you know what proportion of the box shooks 
are produced in Alaska? Most of the material for the boxes is 
knocked down when it comes, and it. is set up there again ready for 
use? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; most of the shooks are manufactured in 
southeastern Alaska — that is, those used by the canneries in the 
Panhandle of Alaska. 

Mr. Hadley. Does the southeastern Alaska business absorb the 
box-factory output of southeast Alaska, or does the product of that 
factory go into western Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir; I think that the business in southeastern 
Alaska comes near absorbing all of it. 

Mr. Hadley. So that the boxes used in shipping the pack from 
western Alaska are shipped from Puget Sound ? 

46232— pt 6—- 16 2 



372 * ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. In fact, they can be shipped more cheaply 
from Puget Sound. 

Mr. Hadley. I only ask that question because that is an element 
of the cost, and I want to see how it is distributed. 

The Chairman. Some of the larger canneries make their own cans, 
do they not ? 

Mr. Strong. Some of them do; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. Coming back to the question: What proportion of the 
annual output in southeastern Alaska is produced by small canneries 
like your own ? 

Mr. Strong. Do you mean the small independent plants? 

Mr. Hardy. Yes. 

Mr. Strong. I hardly know where you draw the line. 

Mr. Hardy. I call your attention to this statement in the Daily 
Alaska Dispatch of June 1, 1916: 

Libby, McNeil & Libby, the Chicago packers, purchased an option on four salmon 
canneries on Bristol Bay, seven cannery ships and other personal property of the 
Alaska Salmon Co., of San Francisco, a $600,000 corporation. 

I believe that is in a section you are not familiar with? 
Mr. Strong. . I am not familiar with western Alaska. 
Mr. Hardy. The statement goes on to say — 

The purchase price is not announced. 

Do you know anything about that, or do you know whether 
Libby, McNeil & Libby, or any other big concerns, are buying up 
the small canneries in that section? 

Mr. Strong. I do not know of the transaction mentioned, but I 
heard that Libby, McNeil & Libby had an option a year or two ago 
on one plant in our part of the country, but it was never taken up. 

Mr. Hardy. This statement says — 

The Chicago packing firm paid $200,000 for its option, and has until October next 
to complete the deal. 

They would hardly pay that for an option unless they expected 
to carry it through, would they? 

Mr. Strong. If they paid that amount, I believe it will be found 
to be an advance payment on the pack for the coming season, and 
the transaction may have carried an option of purchase. Two years 
ago Libby, McNeill & Libby advanced to one canning firm sufficient 
money to make it possible for them to get up their pack. They had 
an understanding that they would sell the pack or a portion of it for 
that season on a commission basis, and at the same time, they in- 
cluded in that agreement an option of purchase. The money that 
they advanced was against the pack of the season. 

The Chairman. And along with that, they had an option to pur- 
chase the plant at a certain price ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Britton. Was the option exercised ? 

Mr. Strong. No, sir. 

Mr. Hardy. It was not a payment of so much for an option, but 
it was the furnishing of money on the side 

Mr. Strong (interposing) . Libby, McNeill & Libby had an option 
on that plant. I was pleased at the time with the report, for the 
reason that we considered Libby, McNeill & Libby great distributors 
of meats, canned vegetables, and fruit, and I thought that their 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 373 

interest in the salmon market would stimulate the demand and open 
new markets. ^ 

The Chairman. Is there anything else you wish to ask of Mr. 
Strong ? 

Mr. Britton. I was about to ask him something. Mr. Strong, 
you were about to mention the fact that the Alaska Packers Associa- 
tion had — how many canneries in southeastern Alaska ? 

Mr. Strong. Two. 

Mr. Britton. How many as compared with the total number of 
canneries there ? 

Mr. Strong. There are from 50 to 75 canneries. 

Mr. Bower. There were 44 in 1914. 

Mr. Strong. There are over 50 at the present time. They have 
two out of 50 canneries. 

Mr. Britton. Is there any particular reason why a company with 
capital should buy up any of these smaller canneries rather than 
build plants of their own ? 

Mr. Strong. None whatever. 

Mr. Britton. There is no particular reason in the way of economy 
for purchasing an existing poorly run and poorly fed cannery, rather 
than establishing one of your own of new construction ? 

Mr. Strong. None whatever. In fact, of the canneries which have 
been bought up in the last two or three years, there are only two 
that I have in mind have to my own knowledge during their exist- 
ence either been sold at creditors' sale or under the hammer 

Mr. Hardy (interposing). So far as the reason is concerned, I can 
give you a sort of parallel case in my own State. About 10 or 12 
years ago the Kirby Lumber Co. was formed in southeast Texas. 
They bought up a lot of little sawmills down in that section that were 
poorly run, or otherwise. It was very easy for me to see the pur- 
pose they had in buying them up. The purpose was to obtain control 
of the total output of lumber in that section. Now, is there any 
such reason why men with large capital engaged in the fisheries busi- 
ness should not want to buy up the little outputters ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir; I think there are many. 

Mr. Hardy. I would like to hear them. 

Mr. Strong. In the first place, as I have said, it would be a 
colossal failure. We have approximately 26,000 miles of coast line 
in Alaska, which is a great area to cover. The small independent 
plants, locally owned, receiving personal attention from the owners, 
can handle their business at least 10 cents per dozen cans cheaper 
than a large corporation with heavy overhead expenses. They must 
rely on managers, superintendents, or foremen, who have no interest 
in the industry other than their salaries, and you are not going to 
get as good results under those conditions as you will get from per- 
sonally conducted plants. 

Mr. Hardy. Now, right along on that same line, these little saw- 
mills in southeast Texas, prior to the time that they were bought 
up, or some of them, were successfully managed, and they put out 
their lumber much more cheaply than the combination did after- 
wards. Those small mills sold lumber at $8 per thousand feet, and 
they did it at a profit; but when those mills were bought up by the 
big company, I suppose for the lack of personal attention or the lack 
of some other elements of economy, the lumber was sold at from 



374 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

to $25 per thousand feet. Now, they made more money than the 
small concerns from whom they bought the mills. When you come 
to the matter of a monopoly, the cost of production does not count 
for much, but it is rather a question of how much the consumers can 
pay for the product. Now, I want to know the reason why the 
lumber industry and the fish industry do not follow the same line in 
that respect, when you come to the question of monopolizing the 
industry 

Mr. Strong. It is an entirely different proposition. This is aood 
supply, and there is a demand all over the land for it. I can not see 
any possible chance for any one concern or for any half a dozen con- 
cerns going in and controlling the fish supply. 

Mr. Warren. The proposition is entirely different. When they 
bought up the small sawmills you refer to, they also practically con- 
trolled the raw material or timber. The timber, of course, went 
along with them, and it would not do for anyone to put in anew saw- 
mill, because there would be no timber to saw. But if you should 
go up to Alaska and buy up all the canneries to-day, I could still 
go in and get the raw product, or fresh fish, and, therefore, there 
would be no limit placed on the output. 

Mr. Wickersham. Why would it not have the effect of a monopoly 
if they should have the right to preempt all of the trap sites ? 

Mr. Warren. Because the trap is only effective in certain places, 
and it does not control the general situation as to the fish supply. 

Mr. Wickersham. But it would be possible under this bill to con- 
trol the trap sites through a monopoly? 

Mr. Warren. They could only control the situation within a 
certain distance. I could go to work and put in a purse seine right 
alongside a trap and catch fish. 

Mr. Wickersham. The man who owned the trap sites would have 
a monopoly 

Mr. Warren (interposing). Not of the waters between the traps. 
A monopoly of the fish supply would not be possible under those 
circumstances. A monopoly would not be possible so long as any- 
body could secure the raw material. 

Mr. Hardy. If you had a trap site preempted, giving you the 
exclusive privilege of fishing there, could a purse seine man go in 
and fish out that fish-trap site ? 

Mr. Warren. He could go in there and fish alongside the fish trap. 

Mr. Hardy. He could go into the territory preempted as a trap 
site? 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. The advantage of fishing with gear that is not fixed 
is that the fishermen can fish wherever they like, whereas the trap 
is fixed. 

Mr. Warren. They say that at one time on Puget Sound 85 per 
cent of the fish supply was caught by means of traps; but no such 
condition would be possible in Alaska since the perfecting of the purse- 
seine method of fishing. I think not over 50 per cent of the fish 
supply is now caught by traps. 

Mr. Hadley. My statement was predicated upon my knowledge 
of conditions on Puget Sound, and I wanted to ascertain whether 
an analogous condition existed in Alaska. 

Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 375 

The Chairman. Is there anything else ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this last witness a 
question or two. Mr. Strong, you know nothing about this state- 
ment concerning the purchase of the four salmon canneries on Bristol 
Bay by Libby, McNeil & Libby ? 

Mr. Strong. Nothing, except that it seems to be on similar lines 
with the one handled in southeastern Alaska two years ago. 
Mr. Wickersham. Where they had an option on the pack ? 
Mr. Strong. It worked out that way, although the statement was 
common that Libby, McNeil & Libby had an option on a certain plant 
and were to take it. 

Mr. Wickersham. But you know nothing about the facts con- 
nected with this matter ? 

Mr. Strong. Nothing whatever. 
Mr. Wickersham. That is all. 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Strong, I think, would like to correct a state- 
ment he made, or, rather, the impression left by his statement, that 
he packed 90,000 cases of salmon in a plant that was worth onlv 
$20,000. ' y 

Mr. Strong. I did not mean that. I said that I was interested 
last year in two plants that packed approximately 90,000 cases of 
salmon. I sold out one of those plants in the spring, and we have 
now constructed a second small plant in Ketchikan, which really con- 
sists of two warehouses, which during the balance of the year we use 
for other purposes, on our wharf. It simply means the investment 
in a line of cannery machinery. I do not think the total investment 
m this plant would exceed $7,000 or $8,000. 

Mr Bower. May I suggest to the committee, in order to get it 
clearly established, that pound nets are used extensively only in one 
part of Alaska, and that they are not used to any appreciable extent 
m western Alaska, where one-third the value of the salmon is pro- 
duced. In 1914 there were in operation only 13 traps, or pound 

nets, as we call them, in western Alaska. K early all of the fish or, 

to be exact, 94 per cent of the fish — were caught in gill nets. In 
other words, one-third of the salmon in all Alaska was taken by gill 
nets, of which 94 per cent was taken by gill nets in the western dis- 
trict. The impression has been left here, I think, that throughout 
Alaska the fish are taken almost wholly in pound nets, which is not 
the case, as I have just endeavored to show. 

Mr. Hadley. What percentage is taken in traps ? 
Mr. Bower. In 1914 31 per cent was taken by traps or pound nets- 
41 per cent of the total was taken by gill nets, and 27 per cent was 
taken by seines. 

The Chairman. You say there are 26,000 miles of coast line « 
Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What proportion of that is fishing ground? 
Mr. Bower. The developed fishing grounds I should say cover 
7,000 or 8,000 miles of the 26,000 miles. There is still much room for 
expansion of the industry. 

Mr Wickersham. And in any area of that 7,000 or 8,000 miles 
you think they could put traps and make a success of them « 
Mr. Bower. No, sir; that is not correct. 

Mr. Wickersham. I know it is not correct, but I think vou are 
leaving that impression. 



376 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Bower. I did not intend to do so. 

Mr. Wickersham. I know what you said, but I thought it was 
probable that you were leaving a wrong impression. 

Mr. Edmonds. I think it would be a good thing for the people up 
there in Alaska if you should do away with traps altogether. 

Mr. Bower. I think the pound net or trap is a legitimate piece of 
fishing apparatus, and we think that the fish caught in pound nets 
are superior in quality to those taken by purse seines for the reason 
that the fish are always fresh because they come from the water just 
before going to the cannery, whereas the purse seine catches- very 
often lie in the bottom of a boat for two or three days before arriving 
at the cannery. The department considers the pound net a legiti- 
mate piece of fishing apparatus. 

Mr. Edmonds. It is generally located so as to prevent the run of 
the fish up the river. 

Mr. Bower. They must be located properly, and we endeavor to 
cover that by the provisions of the bill which you are now considering. 

The Chairman. Another feature is to prevent those who operate 
pound nets from monopolizing the fishing ground. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, they will monopolize them more easily 
under the pound-net license contained in this bill, will they not ? 

Mr. Bower. I do not think that is a fair statement of the situation. 

Mr.. Wickersham. But is it not true, according to the exact terms 
of the bill ? 

Mr. Bower. There is nothing to prevent the operation of all other 
apparatus such as gill nets and purse seines. 

Mr. Wickersham. But not in pound-net sites. 

Mr. Bower. I know enough about the fishing business to go into 
any place in Alaska where a man may have a pound net and take 
gill nets or purse seines and absolutely prevent that pound net from 
catching fish in a profitable manner. In other words, I can "cork" 
it, in the phraseology of the commercial fishermen. 

Mr. Hardy. Do I understand you to say, Mr. Bower, that when 
one of these pound nets is located and given an exclusive privilege 
over its site which is surveyed, mapped out, and filed to cover 360 
acres of ground, that a man with a purse net is privileged or allowed 
to go into that area and seine for fish there, notwithstanding the 
rights of the man who has put the pound net there ? 

Mr. Bower. No. That is not exactly the impression that I in- 
tended to leave in your mind. I mean that a man with a purse net 
or gill net can anticipate the coming of the fish to the pound net; 
that is to say, before the fish get to the pound net they can be caught 
by these movable forms of apparatus, which will be far enough away 
from the pound-net site so that they will not be infringing upon 
the law. 

Mr. Hadley. In other words, as I understand you, the school of 
fish in their sweep toward the pound net are caught by the gill net 
and the purse seine, and they are either broken up or deflected from 
the pound net. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hadley. Well, that is the way it operates on Puget Sound, 
and I presume it is the same way in Alaska. 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 377 

Mr. Wickersham. They can not set out gill nets at night or in 
stormy weather. 

Mr. Bower. Well, of course they can not do it very well in western 
Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. I am talking about where the red fish are. 

Mr. Bower. Well, there are not many pound nets in Alaska where 
the red fish are. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, I understood you to say there were some. 

Mr. Bower. Well, there are 13, but that is a comparatively insig- 
nificant number. 

Mr. Wickersham. As a matter of fact, you say that when you do 
the fishing up there it is at the season of the year when there is no 
night ? 

Mr. Warren. The gill-net fishing is best carried on when the water 
is muddy. If the water is muddy it can be done in the daytime. If 
the water is not muddy it requires a dim light. 

The Chairman. How long is the season up there ? 

Mr. Bower. In Bristol Bay the active fishing season is about 25 
days. 

The Chairman. From the standpoint of economy, to put in a trap 
there at that time would not be as profitable as to use the other 
methods of fishing. 

Mr. Bower. It would not be as profitable. 

Mr. Warren. The nature of the country up there is not such that 
it can become a trap ground. 

Mr. Bower. It will never become a good trap ground, I venture 
to say, in the history of the fishing industry of Alaska. The fish 
will always be caught in western Alaska with mobile apparatus. 
That is the part of Alaska with which Judge Wickersham is less 
familiar, I believe. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, I have been out in Bristol Bay, and I 
have seen conditions there. 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Chairman, I would like a few minutes in which 
to refute a few statements made by Mr. Wickersham with reference 
to trusts, and particularly with reference to the Alaska Packers' 
Association, as being the leader of the Fish Trust. My idea of a trust 
is a combination of men or companies having for its purpose the 
monopolization of a given line of industry or business. Now, the 
record shows that the proportion of nets owned and operated by the 
Alaska Packers' Association in proportion to the total number used 
in Alaska is 30 out of 240. 

The record further shows that the Alaska Packers' Association 
owns and operates 13 canneries out of a total of 85. The testimony 
of Mr. Strong has very strongly shown that there is no concerted 
action on the part of these various companies and independent opera- 
tors in Alaska. The Alaska Packers' Association works entirely 
independent of any of them, and when Mr. Wickersham referred to 
the testimony of Mr. J. K. Armsby in fixing princes of salmon — - 
Armsby & Co. are only the sellers of the local goods of the Alaska 
Packers' Association. They merely fix the price of that one asso- 
ciation; they have nothing to do with the price charged by any 
other independent packer or any other association or company. 

Mr. Wickersham. May I interrupt you? My statement was that 
Mr. Aplin said that your prices were accepted by the other packers. 



378 Alaska fisheries. 

Mr. Britton. That may be so, but our price is not binding upon 
anybody else. He simply fixes the price upon the output of the 
Alaska Packers' Association, being the selling agent of that com- 
pany. The record also shows, on page 302 of the proceedings before 
the Senate Committee on Fisheries, with reference to Mr. Wicker- 
sham's statement that this Alaska Packers' Association has made so 
many millions of dollars profit out of the business, that, including 
the Puget Sound business of the association, operating in 19 years, 
from 1893 to 1911, the total profit was $9,813,885, with dividends of 
$6,159,477, and a stock dividend of $1,680,000. It shows that the 
average capital employed was $4,068,178, and that the bare ex- 

fenditures per annum for doing business were a little over $3,000,000. 
t showed that the average annual net profit per case was 4 cents; 
so that in running over a period of 19 years at that time, and now 25 
years, upon an average annual capital of about $5,000,000, with an 
average annual expenditure of $3,000,000, this association has been 
able to make an average net profit of about 4 cents per case. 

The Chairman. What per cent would that be on your investment ? 

Mr. Britton. That would be less than 5 per cent. 

Mr. Wigkersham. May I ask Mr. Britton some questions, Mr. 
Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Have you completed your statement, Mr. Britton? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. I- want to know if before that statement of 
profit was made, the insurance fund was not made good ? 

Mr. Britton. That is all shown in the statement. 

Mr. Wickersham. That is all shown? The depreciation, too? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wickersham. And every item of repairs and building new 
ships and everything of that nature ? 

Mr. Britton. No; not building new ships. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think it is. I think that is where they cover 
up their profit in other places. It is all covered up in a statement 
of that kind. 

Mr. Britton. Judge, this company is rather a responsible company, 
and its stock is held by people who are very deeply interested in 
their investment. Their accounts are examined annually by public 
accountants who certify to the correctness of their report. 

Mr. Wickersham. I have no doubt that it is correct. 

Mr. Britton. This is the second time that you have made that 
statement, and I want to say that if you have any positive facts or 
any statements to submit in support of it, I would like them to go 
in the record, but if you have no proof to supoprt that statement, I 
do not think you ought to continue to make such statements. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think that anybody who has the slightest infor- 
mation about bookkeeping can look at the statement and discover in 
a moment how it is prepared. 

Mr. Britton. But you do not care to go into that now? 

Mr. Wickersham. 'Oh, I have gone in to it before and I will do so 
again if anybody cares to hear it. 

Mr. Britton. I do not think this committee cares to hear it 
particularly. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further, Judge? 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 379 

Mr. Wickersham. I want to ask Mr. Bower a question. Mr. Bower 
what proportion of all the canned salmon in Alaska does the Alaska 
Packers's Association put up ? 

Mr. Bower. I have not the information before me, but I can obtain 
it. It is furnished to the department in sworn statements that are 
filed every year. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, it is about one-fourth. 

Mr. Bower. I should say, offhand, that it is about one-fourth. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is about one-fourth of the total pack. 

Mr. Edmonds. I have the figures here. It is about one-fifth. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is more than that. 

Mr. Edmonds. It is about 1,000,000 cans out of 5,000,000 cans. 

The Chairman. I have the figures here. 

Mr. Wickersham. What was the total pack for last year? 

Mr. Bower. I think it was 4,500,000 cases. 

Mr. Wickersham. I simply want to call your attention to the 
fact that they put up about one-fourth of all the canned salmon in 
Alaska. 

Mr. Bower. On further reflection, my remembrance is that they 
put up something like 900,000 cases. 

Mr. Hardy. About 978,000 out of a total of 4,000,000. 

Mr. Bower. Out of a total of 4,500,000. 

The Chairman. The Alaska Packers' Association in 1915 in 
western Alaska canned 538,804 full cases, according to these figures. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, I know they put up the largest part of 
the western Alaska pack. 

Mr. Britton. I submitted to the committee a detailed statement 
of the Alaska Packers' Association pack the other day. 

The Chairman. In southeastern Alaska the Alaska Packers' 
Association in 1915 canned 233,473 cases. In central Alaska the 
canned salmon pack in 1915 was 203,043 cases, by the Alaska 
Packers' Association. Those are the figures for the western, central, 
and southeast packs. Those are the only three figures, are they not ? 

Mr. Bower. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, the recapitulation of the Alaska salmon pack 
shows a total of 4,489,321. 

Mr. Hardy. The difference is as 976 is to 4,489. 

Mr. Bower, That is, as 976,000 is to 4,489,000. 

Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Britton, your company did not pay dividends 
for two or three years— 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1910? 

Mr. Britton. There were three years that they operated at a 
considerable loss. 

Mr. Edmonds. What has happened since that time that makes the 
business so profitable ? Last year you had an exceedingly profitable 
year. 

Mr. Britton. They only cleared last year some $545,000. 

Mr. Edmonds. The year before that you cleared about $1,000,000 ? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edmonds. That is about 20 per cent on your capital? 

Mr. Britton. The capital is $7,000,000. 

Mr. Edmonds. What has happened that you have been able to 
lose money for three years and yet make such a profitable showing 
in such a short time ? 



380 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Britton. I could not tell you the details about that but I pre- 
sume it is the difference in the seasons. Of course, the Puget Sound 
pack is the more profitable of the two. They make more money out 
of the Puget Sound pack than they do out of the other. 

Mr. Hadley. We have what we call a big run and a little run at 
Puget Sound. One year is profitable and another year is unprofita- 
ble. 

Mr. Edmonds. I was wondering whether the difference in price 
was owing to some agreement between the canners up there as to 
price. 

Mr. Britton. No; there is no such agreement. The packers have 
been greatly disappointed because there have been no increased 
sales owing to the war. They had an idea that with such a cheap food 
as salmon, the foreign markets would increase, but outside of Aus- 
tralia, the foreign markets are bad. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, I put in the record figures 
showing the increase in the price of canned salmon, and I think it 
amounts to 5 per cent per annum in the last 10 years. The figures 
will show exactly what it is. 

Mr. Britton. I think your testimony shows that it had increased 
68 per cent. 

Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman, 1 think statements like that do a great 
injustice to so many of the people interested in the canning business. 
I have been in the canning business for five years, and I know that 
there has been a decrease. Five years ago we had the best market 
for pink salmon. Now, inasmuch as 50 per cent of the supply is 
pink salmon, why have all this argument on the red salmon ? We ars 
interested in the pink fish. Pink salmon is one of the best popular- 
priced food articles there is on the market. It is a thing that we 
should all be interested in developing and getting on the market. 
It is a fine food article. Yet it is sold at a decreased price from what 
it was five years ago. It has decreased during the last five years. 
Five years ago pink salmon sold at a dollar a dozen, which was a fair 
valuation as compared with beef or anything else put up in cans. 
It is quite equal to beef at that price. Last year 50 per cent of the 
pink salmon sold for 65 cents a dozen. In 1911 the bulk of the pink 
salmon sold for a dollar a dozen. The next year it sold somewhere 
around 90 cents a dozen; it has been on the toboggan slide ever since. 
This year, however, things are looking better, and we have already 
sold some of our pack in advance at an advanced figure. Perhaps 
we have been wise in doing it and perhaps we have not. 

Mr. Britton. You mean at an advanced figure over last year's 
price % 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Britton. But still well below the price of 1911 % 

Mr. Strong. Oh, yes. Now, inasmuch as over 50 per cent of the 
pack of Alaska salmon is in this class, I think these facts should be 
brought out. 

Mr. Wickersham. I want to say very distinctly that I do not know 
anything about this price matter personally. I am not engaged in 
the canning of salmon or in the salmon business. I have no intimate 
knowledge of the increase or decrease in the price of salmon. I have 
put into the record an official statement made by the Bureau of Sta- 
tistics in the Department of Labor, and the official letter of Mr. 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 381 

Royal Meeker, the commissioner. That is all that I know about it, 
and I want to make that perfectly clear. 

The Chairman. I do not recall now just exactly what the state- 
ment was. I would have to examine the record. The question is 
now, are we making any headway ? 

Mr. Hardy. It seems to me we are a long ways from the merits of 
this bill. 

The Chairman. I do not know that we have accomplished much in 
this discussion. 

Mr. Hardy. While it is a very interesting and instructive discussion 
I do not see where it is going to get us. 

The Chairman. If there is a monopoly or a threatened monopoly, 
we can not handle it in this way by any of the suggestions made here 
this morning. We will have to do it in some other way. 

Mr. Hardy. Before Judge Wickersham goes, I want to refresh his 
memory in one particular. There was some statement made here the 
other day as to the rise in price of some class of salmon while the 
other classes of salmon were decreasing. There was a statement that 
the fish which had risen in price were the fish dealt in by some of 
the supposed trust. 

Mr. Wickersham. The statement that I filed shows that. 

Mr. Strong. We haA~e had a very small proportion of red fish and 
we have always been interested in getting as much as we could out 
of it. To the best of my knowledge, the prices have averaged for the 
last five years approximately $1.50 per dozen. 

Mr. Hardy. I think you were here the other day, Mr. Strong, when 
the statement I speak of was made — that one kind of salmon was 
mainly sold b}^ the I\ew York agency of some great firm. 

Mr. Wickersham. The Alaska Packers' Association. 

Mr. Hardy. That that salmon had advanced in price while other 
salmon, more desirable, had fallen in price. 

Mr. Strong. I did not hear that statement, but I do know that 
pink salmon has declined in the past few years, to the best of my 
knowledge. Alaska red salmon have sold approximately at $1.50 
per dozen. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, your statement is just in conformity with the 
statement I am speaking of. I can not recall who made the statement 
just now. 

Mr. Wickersham. It is in the record. 

Mr. Strong. I have seen a statement that was made up on a valua- 
tion placed in the royal Chinook salmon canned on the Columbia 
River, and that statement has been made to appear to cover the 
value of the salmon pack all over the Pacific coast, which is, of course, 
erroneous. 

Mr. Hardy. Well, evidently you can take different statements and 
different figures and make any deduction you want to. 

Mr. Strong. Well, that may be. When I first went on the Pacific 
coast there were but one or two canneries on Puget Sound. In fact, 
I think the first cannery was put in after I got there. Nearly all of 
the fish came from the Columbia River. Apparently at that time 
there was an abundant supply, but the demand increased faster 
than the supply, and those fish had a standing and a reputation all 
over the country. They maintained a higher price than was given 
to any other fish. 



382 . ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Mr. Hardy. I do not know that you catch the point of the remi- 
niscence that I am giving you — that a certain kind of fish controlled 
by the larger packers was sold at a price fixed by -the combination 
and the price of that fish had been advanced while other and better 
fish were taking the toboggan slide. 

Mr. Strong. I think I understand your point. 

Mr. Hardy. Does that suggest any lesson to you ? 

Mr. Strong. Columbia fish have advanced. They are a higher 
class of fish, and the supply has not equaled the demand, and conse- 
quently they have been able to get a higher price. 

Mr. Hardy. That was the statement that was given here, that the 
fish that that company sold 

Mr. Strong (interposing). They have advanced also Puget Sound 
Reds; but during the past five years the average price of Alaska fish 
has not advanced. Statements have been made before this com- 
mittee with the intent of getting at large canning interests, which 
statements in effect are injuring and doing an injustice to Alaska and 
many small locally owned canneries. 

Mr. Wickersham. The statement made by Mr. Meeker was that 
he did not fix the price upon the basis of the Columbia River fish, but 
on the fancy reds. That is in the record. 

Mr. Hardy. I have given my recollection of what it was. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now, Mr. Chairman, you wanted me to make 
a statement of what ought to be done in the matter. Unfortunately, 
the bills that I have introduced in respect to this matter are not before 
this committee. I have gone over the matter very carefully and gone 
over all the bills and have prepared a substitute for all of them which 
I would like to leave with the chairman without necessarily putting 
it in the record, merely to" call your attention to what I think ought 
to be done. 

Mr. Britton. You do not want that in the record? 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, I do not object to it going in the record. 

Mr. Hardy. I think it ought to be in the record. 

The Chairman. All right. Let the record show that the bill sug- 
gested by Mr. Wickersham, the Delegate from Alaska, as a substitute 
for the bill now before the committee, is introduced in the record. 

Mr. Wickersham. In that connection I would like to have this 
statement in the record also : That I do not quite agree with section 4 
of the bill. There is a period of one year fixed there which I think 
ought to be five years. Otherwise I agree with it. 

Mr. Hardy. That is in your proposed substitute ? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

(The substitute bill submitted by Mr. Wickersham follows:) 

A BILL For the preservation, conservation, and CDntrol of the fisheries of Alaska, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled: That all those waters, streams, rivers, and lakes in Alaska 
which empty into Bering Sea and Bristol Bay, and into the Pacific Ocean, and 
all of the bays, channels, straits, or waters from the outer Aleutian Islands easterly 
and southerly to fifty-four degrees forty minutes, the south line of Alaska, which are 
frequented by salmon or other food fish for spawning, or in which fish or other marine 
animals (except fur seals) appear in such numbers as to be valuable for fishery, be, 
and the same are hereby, forever reserved from sale or other disposition, except as 
provided in this act, to any person, association, or corporation; and the title to all 
said waters, and all waters along said coast out to the limit of the Territorial jurisdic- 
tion of the United States, and in all tide and shore lands on said waters, streams, 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 383 

rivers, lakes, bays, channels, and straits up to the line of ordinary high- water mark, 
be and they are hereby reserved by the United States for fishery purposes; and the 
President of the United States is hereby authorized and empowered to reserve for 
such fishery purposes so much of the uplands upon and adjacent to the shores of 
said waters as may be necessary for the conservation, preservation, and propagation 
of fish or other marine animals which may resort thereto, or which may be propagated 
or transplanted therein: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be held to prevent 
the use of the tide lands or naAdgable waters in Alaska by wharves or other approaches 
from the land to the navigable waters, nor to prevent ingress or egress between the 
shore lands and the navigable waters as that right has long existed: Provided. That 
nothing in this act shall interfere with the free navigation of any navigable waters, 
nor be construed as impairing in any degree the title of the Territory of Alaska or of 
any State or States which may hereafter be erected out of said Territory to the tide 
lands and beds of any of its streams or its fisheries, nor the right of the United States 
to control commerce and navigation therein, it being hereby declared that the rights 
of fishery and to the tide lands herein mentioned shall continue to be held by the 
United States in trust for the people of the Territory of Alaska, and of any State or 
States which may hereafter be erected out of said Territory. The term "navigable 
waters" as used herein shall be held to include all tidal waters up to the line of ordi- 
nary high tide, and all nontidal waters navigable in fact up to the line of ordinary 
high- water mark. 

Sec. 2. That in addition to the powers now authorized to be exercised by the 
Legislature of Alaska, its legislative power shall extend to and over all the fish and 
fisheries of Alaska, and all wild animals and birds therein (not including herein the 
fur seals), and the legislature shall pass laws for the conservation, protection, and 
regulation thereof, and may levy and collect for Territorial use a license tax on trade 
and business, including the fish and fisheries, and may control the domestication of 
all wild animals and birds, and provide for the erection of fish hatcheries and stocking 
of barren streams and lakes with fish: Provided, That all laws now in force in Alaska 
for the conservation and protection of the fisheries thereof shall continue in force 
until altered, amended, or added to by the legislature by general law. 

Sec. 3. That the Legislature of Alaska may, subject to the provisions of this act, 
and by general law, provide for leasing fishery areas, within four thousand feet of 
the shore of Alaska and its islands (not including therein the Pribilof Islands), for a 
period not to exceed five years, at the end of which period the said tract or tracts 
mentioned or described in any lease shall be forfeited to the public use, and be again 
free from all claims whatsoever, and subject to lease to any applicant therefor. 

Sec. 4. That nothing in this act or in any act of the Legislature of Alaska, or in any 
lease or contract so made or authorized by either, of any such fisheries or fishery site 
in Alaska, shall be held to prevent the United States by act of Congress from resuming 
control with full power of disposition of all or any part of said fisheries or fishery sites 
or grounds, whether leased or not on the first day of January of any year subsequent 
to the date of the approval of this act, and in such event every such lease or contract 
shall be thereby terminated and at an end, without any compensation of any kind 
being paid therefor bv either the Territory of Alaska or the United States. 

Sec. 5 ; That no fishery area in Alaska in excess of one hundred and sixty acres 
shall be included in any lease to any person, association, or corporation, and no such 
person, association, or corporation shall be permitted to take, own or control, or have 
under his or their management more than three such areas or fishery sites under this 
act, or at all, and if any area or areas of such fishery grounds and waters in excess 
thereof shall be held, claimed, leased, trusteed, possessed, or controlled in any man- 
ner or by any devise, permanently or temporarily, directly or indirectly, tacitly or 
otherwise, or in any area less than the maximum so as to form part of or in any way 
affect any combination in violation of law or this act, or is in any area in any wise 
controlled by any combination in the form of an unlawful trust, or shall form the 
subject of any contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade in the manufacture, canning, 
catching, dealing, or trading in fish or fishery products, or of any holding of any such 
lease or leases, by any individual, partnership, association, corporation, mortgage, 
stock ownership or control, the title to each and every part of such fishery or leased 
area or areas, shall be forfeited to the Territory of Alaska, from that date when any 
court of competent jurisdiction shall by its final judgment find the said violation of 
law to have been begun or set on foot by the parties or their successors; and it shall 
be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States, of any United States dis- 
trict attorney in Alaska, or any attorney duly authorized to act for the Territory of 
Alaska to institute such proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction for the 
purpose of enforcing the provisions of this section whenever there is reasonable ground 
to believe that any such violation has occurred or is attempted. 



384 ALASKA FISHERIES. 

Sec. 6. That it shall be the duty of the Legislature of Alaska, subject to the pro- 
visions of this act, to pass general laws for the preservation, protection, and conserva- 
tion of the fisheries of Alaska, to prevent encroachments upon the spawning grounds, 
to prevent fishing in streams or lakes resorted to by spawning fish, to provide penal- 
ties against violations of the fishery laws, and generally to provide against the waste 
or destruction of food fish in the waters of Alaska. 

Sec. 7. That nothing in this act shall be held to limit the power or duty of the 
Bureau of Fisheries, or it's officers or employees, in inspection, hatchery work, or 
scientific study, as fully as is now or may hereafter be provided by Congress. 

Sec. 8. In addition to its power to levy a real and personal property tax on the real 
and personal property of persons, associations, partnerships, and corporations engaged 
in the manufacture, matching, canning, or otherwise dealing in fish and fisheries 
products in Alaska as provided by law, the legislature is hereby further empowered 
to levy and collect other and additional license fees upon the nets, traps, boats, ships, 
and other personal property used therein, upon the catch of fresh fish, upon the manu- 
facture of canned products, and upon other elements of value not included in the real 
estate value; such license fees shall be reasonable in rate, and when collected by the 
Territory one-half of the gross amount collected shall be paid by the Territory into a 
fund inthe Territorial treasury, to be expended by the Secretary of Commerce, or 
upon his order, in the work of inspection and propagation of salmon and other food fish 
in Alaskan waters: Provided, That nothing herein shall be held to prevent the collec- 
tion of said fees and taxes through the office of the clerk of the district court and the 
collector of customs, in the manner now provided by law: Provided further, That the 
Secretary of Commerce shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to report to Congress, at 
any time, upon the fishery conditions in Alaskan waters with recommendations. 

Sec. 9. That any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall, 
upon conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction, be punished as for the commis- 
sion of a misdemeanor. 

The Chairman. I desire to incorporate in the record the following 
telegram of date June 6 received from the Alaska Fish Salting & By- 
products Co.: 

Portland, Oreg., June 6, 1916. 
Hon. Joshua W. Alexander, 

Chairman Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
In December, 1915, this company bought herring fisheries plant of Alaska Oil & 
Guano Co. of Killisnoo, Alaska, without knowledge of pending legislation limiting 
time for taking fish in Alaskan waters for other than food purposes as provided by 
section 13 of bill before your committee, of which, if enacted, stockholders in new com- 
pany will suffer irreparable loss. We state to you that no more than 1 per cent of fish 
taken in our nets are other than herring, which 1 per cent is used for food purposes; 
that herring in these waters are not fit for food before August 20, and that all herring 
taken and fit for such are made food products, which is 20 per cent of annual catch. 
Other uses are oil, halibut bait, and fish meal, but not fertilizer. We beg operation of 
plant until such time as Alaska herring industry reaches commercial importance. 

Alaska Fish Salting & By-Products Co. 

The Chairman. I desire to insert in the record the following letter 
from the Hon. C. N. McArthur, Member of Congress from the State of 

Oregon : 

June 15, 1916. 
Hon. Joshua W. Alexander, 

Chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: According to the provisions of section 13 of H. R. 9528, entitled "A bill 
for the protection, regulation, and conservation of the fisheries of Alaska," now before 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, it is proposed to make it unlawful 
to destroy food fish in the waters of Alaska after three years from the passage of the 
measure in question. 

While I am interested in the proper protection and conservation of fish, I fear that 
the proposed three-year limit will work a great injustice upon a business concern in 
my home city that had made large investments in Alaska in the nature of a plant for 
the manufacture of oil and guano from herring. This concern is known as the Alaska 
Oil & Guano Co. During the hearings on S. 5856 of the Sixty-second Congress, second 
session, Mr. Zera Snow, of Portland, Oreg., attorney for the Alaska Oil & Guano Co., 



ALASKA FISHERIES. 385 

appeared before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Fisheries, gave testimony 
and filed a statement on behalf of the company. Mr. Snow's testimony and the 
company's statement are fully set forth on pages 5 to 28 of the printed hearings on 
S. 5856 which are now on file with the House Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries. I invite your careful attention to both Mr. Snow's testimony and the 
company's statement. Mr. Snow, Mr. Spuhn, president of the company, and their 
associates are all men of the highest standing and probity and their statements are 
entitled to full consideration and credit. 

It is not my purpose to discuss in this letter the question of whether herring may 
properly be classified as a food fish, as you and the other members of the committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries are far better qualified than I am to determine this 
question, but I do ask that the statements above referred to be given due consideration; 
and if legislation such as proposed by section 13 is agreed to, I am hopeful that a longer 
period of time than three years will be allowed for the catching and utilization of 
herring under the present arrangements. In view of the large investments made by 
the Alaska Oil & Guano Co., which is apparently the only concern affected by the 
proposed section, I am hopeful that 10 years will be allowed, during which time the 
company will have an opportunity to realize something on its investment and wind up 
it business without the serious loss that would certainly follow the enactment of sec- 
tion 13 as it stands. 

I take the liberty of inclosing a pamphlet published by the Alaska Oil & Guano Co. — 
a copy of the company's statement as printed in the report of the hearings before the 
subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Fisheries. 
Very respectfully, yours, 

C. N. McArthur. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further, the hearings will now 
be closed. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 



x 



<k 



» 



#■ 



